Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932613AbXAGRcf (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:32:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932617AbXAGRcf (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:32:35 -0500 Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:43793 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932613AbXAGRcf (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:32:35 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:33:34 +0300 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: Andrew Morton , David Howells , Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update Message-ID: <20070107173334.GC238@tv-sign.ru> References: <20070106151036.GA951@tv-sign.ru> <20070106154506.GC24274@in.ibm.com> <20070106163035.GA2948@tv-sign.ru> <20070106163851.GA13579@in.ibm.com> <20070106173416.GA3771@tv-sign.ru> <20070107104328.GC13579@in.ibm.com> <20070107125603.GA74@tv-sign.ru> <20070107142246.GA149@tv-sign.ru> <20070107164344.GB6800@in.ibm.com> <20070107170158.GC6800@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070107170158.GC6800@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1414 Lines: 36 On 01/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 10:13:44PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > I guess you could have cwq->thread flush only it's cpu's workqueue by > running on another cpu, yes, this is what I meant, > which will avoid the need to synchronize > between worker threads. I am not 100% sure if that breaks workqueue > model in any way (since we could have two worker threads running on the > same CPU, but servicing different queues). Hopefully it doesnt. We are already doing this on CPU_DEAD->kthread_stop(). > However the concern expressed below remains .. > > > Finally, I am concerned about the (un)friendliness of this programming > > model, where programmers are restricted in not having a stable access to > > cpu_online_map at all -and- also requiring them to code in non-obvious > > terms. Granted that writing hotplug-safe code is non-trivial, but the > > absence of "safe access to online_map" will make it more complicated. please see the previous message. Srivatsa, I don't claim my idea is the best. Actually I still hope somebody else will suggest something better and simpler :) Oleg. - 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/