[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:00:26PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <> wrote:
> > It really is just like a reentrant rw semaphore... I don't see the
> > point of the name change, but I guess we don't like reentrant locks so
> > calling it something else might go down better with Linus ;)
> what would fit best is a per-cpu scalable (on the read-side)
> self-reentrant rw mutex. We are doing cpu hotplug locking in things like
> fork or the slab code, while most boxes will do a CPU hotplug event only
> once in the kernel's lifetime (during bootup), so a classic global
> read-write lock is unjustified.

I agree. However, I was not sure if anything else other than for cpu_hotplug,
needs a self-reentrent rwmutex in the kernel.
Which is why I did not expose the locking(at least the write side of it)
outside. We don't want too many lazy programmers anyway!

However, even in case of cpu_hotplug, if we want to prevent
a hotplug event in some critical region where we are not going to sleep,
we may as well use preempt_disable[/enable]. Because __stop_machine_run waits
for all the tasks in the fast-path to complete before it changes
the online_cpus map, if I am not mistaken.

Only when you want your local online cpu_map to remain intact when
you wake up from sleep, should you use cpu_hotplug *lock*.


Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
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: 2006-08-25 05:57    [W:0.073 / U:7.500 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site