lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/5] Remove CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELLED handling from workqueue.c
    On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:38:18PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > >
    > > So, can't we introduce 2 nested rw locks? The first one blocks cpu hotplug
    > > (like get_online_cpus does currently), the second one just pins cpu maps.
    > > I think most users needs only this, not more.
    > >
    >
    > Well, rw locks/sems cannot recurse. However, refcount model supports
    > recursion naturally. Hence the implementation.

    No, no, you misunderstood! (I was unclear). I meant, can't we introduce 2
    refcounted nested locks? Both implemented as get_online_cpus/cpu_hotplug_begin.

    Oleg.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-24 20:11    [W:4.092 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site