[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets+hotplug+preepmt broken
    > > In particular, in my view, locks should guard data.  What data does
    > > lock_cpu_hotplug() guard? I propose that it guards cpu_online_map.
    > >
    > > I recommend considering a different name for this lock. Perhaps
    > > 'cpu_online_sem', instead of 'cpucontrol'? And perhaps the
    > > lock_cpu_hotplug() should be renamed, to say 'lock_cpu_online'?
    > No. CPU hotplug uses two different locking - see both lock_cpu_hotplug()
    > and __stop_machine_run(). Anyone reading cpu_online_map with
    > preemption disabled is safe from cpu hotplug even without taking
    > any lock.

    More precisely (I think), reading cpu_online_map with preemption
    disabled guarantees that none of the cpus in the map will go offline
    -- it does not prevent an online operation in progress (but most code
    only cares about the former case). Also note that __stop_machine_run
    is used only to offline a cpu.

    The cpucontrol semaphore does not only protect cpu_online_map and
    cpu_present_map, but also serializes cpu hotplug operations, so that
    only one may be in progress at a time.

    I've been mulling over submitting a Documentation/cpuhotplug.txt,
    sounds like there's sufficient demand...

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-13 23:12    [W:0.028 / U:99.828 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site