Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751206AbWH3RzV (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:55:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751253AbWH3RzV (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:55:21 -0400 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:15841 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751206AbWH3RzT (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:55:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:54:34 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: paulmck@us.ibm.com Cc: ego@in.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, arjan@infradead.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@intel.linux.com, davej@redhat.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ashok.raj@intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug Message-Id: <20060830105434.d00ae4dc.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20060830151405.GD1296@us.ibm.com> References: <20060824140342.GI2395@in.ibm.com> <1156429015.3014.68.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44EDBDDE.7070203@yahoo.com.au> <20060824150026.GA14853@elte.hu> <20060825035328.GA6322@in.ibm.com> <20060827005944.67f51e92.pj@sgi.com> <20060829180511.GA1495@us.ibm.com> <20060829123102.88de61fa.pj@sgi.com> <20060829200304.GF1290@us.ibm.com> <20060829193828.d38395fe.pj@sgi.com> <20060830151405.GD1296@us.ibm.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.3; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1455 Lines: 31 Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Well, my next question was going to be whether cpuset readers really > need to exclude the writers, or whether there can be a transition > period while the mastodon makes the change as long as it avoids stomping > the locusts. ;-) The mastodon's (aka mammoths ;) may make a batch of several related changes to the cpuset configuration. What's important is that the locusts see either none or all of the changes in a given batch, not some intermediate inconsistent state, and that the locusts see the change batches in the same order they were applied. Off the top of my head, I doubt I care when the locusts see the changes. Some delay is ok, if that's your question. But don't try too hard to fit any work you do to cpusets. For now, I don't plan to mess with cpuset locking anytime soon. And when I do next, it might be that all I need to do is to change the quick lock held by the locusts from a mutex to an ordinary rwsem, so that multiple readers (locusts) can access the cpuset configuration in parallel. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 - 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/