On 12/05/2012 05:09 AM, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> From: Michael Wang <wang...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> With stop_machine() gone from the CPU offline path, we can't depend on >> preempt_disable() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us. > > Minor gripe: I'd prefer this paragraph to use the future rather than > past tense, like: "Once stop_machine() is gone ... we won't be able to > depend". >
Fixed in the new version. > Since you're not supposed to use the _stable() accessors without calling > get_online_cpus_stable_atomic(), why not have > get_online_cpus_stable_atomic() return a pointer to the stable cpumask? > (Which is otherwise static, at least for debug). > We don't have to worry about this now because the new version doesn't use stable cpumask. > Might make the patches messier though... > > Oh, and I'd love to see actual benchmarks to make sure we've actually > fixed a problem with this ;) > Of course :-) They will follow, once we have a proper implementation that we are happy with :-) Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
