Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:32:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:31:08 -0500 Received: from modemcable092.130-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.200.130.92]:30415 "EHLO montezuma.mastecende.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:30:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:38:24 -0500 (EST) From: Zwane Mwaikambo X-X-Sender: zwane@montezuma.mastecende.com To: Ingo Molnar cc: Linux Kernel , Robert Love , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.5] Don't wake up tasks on offline processors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 784 Lines: 23 On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > > This is the current code to migrate tasks off a dead cpu; > > looks good in principle, but to avoid races i'd rather suggest to lock > _all_ runqueues in one big swoop, and then just move everything as > apropriate. It's not like this code has to be highly effective. Ok i'll have a go at that instead, however how hard would it be to do a multiple lock acquisition of that magnitude on 16+ cpus? Thanks, Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca - 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/