lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] stop_machine: reimplement using cpuhog
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:27:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/08, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:53:21AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/time.c b/arch/s390/kernel/time.c
> > > index 65065ac..afe429e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/time.c
> > > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/time.c
> > > @@ -397,7 +397,6 @@ static void __init time_init_wq(void)
> > > if (time_sync_wq)
> > > return;
> > > time_sync_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("timesync");
> > > - stop_machine_create();
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> >
> > The reason we introduced stop_machine_create/destroy was to have a non-failing
> > variant that doesn't rely on I/O.
> > If we ever see a timesync machine check no I/O will succeed (it blocks) until
> > clocks have been synchronized. That means also that we rely on the non-blocking
> > semantics that those functions must have that are called via stop_machine.
> > This isn't true anymore with the cpu hog infrastructure:
> > if passed a blocking function that could wait on I/O we won't see any progress
> > anymore and the machine is dead.
>
> Could you please spell?
>
> How cpuhog can make a difference? Afaics, we shouldn't pass a blocking callback
> to hog_cpus/hog_one_cpu.

Well, it might me true that this shouldn't be done. But I don't see a reason why
in general it wouldn't work to pass a function that would block.
So it's just a matter of time until somebody uses it for such a purpose.
For the current stop_machine implementation it would be broken to pass a blocking
function (preemption disabled, interrupts disabled).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-08 20:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans