On 02/12, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > On 02/11/2014 10:45 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > I am a bit confused... If we do this, why we can't simply turn > > cpu_add_remove_lock into rw_semaphore?
[...snip...] > cpu_notifier_register_begin(); | Run in parallel > | with similar phases > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) | from other subsystems. > init_cpu(cpu); | > > /* Updates the cpu notifier chain. */ > register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier); ||| -- Must run serially Ah indeed, we can't use a single lock, thanks. Perhaps we can simply add a spinlock_t which only protects cpu_chain though, but I am not sure and currently this is off-topic anyway. Thanks, Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
