Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763496AbXHXR2R (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:28:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756857AbXHXR2G (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:28:06 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:45800 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758273AbXHXR2E (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:28:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:27:59 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Gautham R Shenoy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tytso@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Priority boosting for preemptible RCU Message-ID: <20070824172759.GC8589@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20070822190254.GA1135@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070823042639.GA28026@in.ibm.com> <20070823085456.GA18627@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070823101444.GB11258@in.ibm.com> <20070823131501.GC18627@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070823142211.GC11258@in.ibm.com> <20070823155526.GB8371@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070824082121.GA16301@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070824082121.GA16301@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1330 Lines: 28 On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 01:51:21PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Even if we use another cpumask_t, whenever a cpu goes down or comes up, > > > that will be reflected in this map, no? So what's the additional > > > advantage of using it? > > > > The additional map allows the code to use something other than the > > lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug, and also is robust against any > > changes to the hotplug synchronization mechanism. Might well be > > better just to use the current hotplug synchronization mechanism, > > but I was feeling paranoid. ;-) > > If it was doing something more complicated in the critical section other > than summing stuff up, I would probably recommend going for another map > instead of using the current hotplug synchronization. But for this case > the current hotplug synchronization would work just fine. > > I can very well understand your paranoia, but let me assure you, you are > not the only one ;-) OK, will try to keep an open mind... ;-) Thanx, Paul - 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/