Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754219AbYJXNYg (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:24:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751512AbYJXNY1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:24:27 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47805 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751040AbYJXNY0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:24:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:25:09 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Gautham R Shenoy Cc: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, travis@sgi.com, Ingo Molnar , Srivatsa Vaddagiri Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] work_on_cpu: helper for doing task on a CPU. Message-ID: <20081024132509.GB17708@redhat.com> References: <20081023005751.53973DDEFE@ozlabs.org> <20081023094036.GA7593@redhat.com> <20081023143605.GN5255@in.ibm.com> <200810241404.35932.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20081024072147.GA5000@in.ibm.com> <20081024102957.GC4583@redhat.com> <20081024114018.GA24080@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081024114018.GA24080@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1464 Lines: 35 On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > > Having a rule that we shouldn't use work_on_cpu() in cpu-hotplug path > is a good thing. But maintaining it can be difficult. > > We've seen that in the past with the cpucontrol mutex. > We had clear rules that functions which get called in > cpu-hotplug callback paths, shouldn't take this mutex. But with > functions that were called in the cpu-hotplug notifier > path as well as normal paths, it created a whole locking mess, > and took quite some time to fix. > > Similarly, right now, we can have a BUG_ON() which notifies us whenever > someone ends up calling a function that invokes work_on_cpu() from the > CPU-Hotplug callpath. But we will fix it only when the BUG_ON() is hit. > > On the other hand, if we have a mechanism that's guaranteed to work > irrespective of the callpaths, why not use that ? If we add another wq for work_on_cpu(), then we add another hard-to-maintain rule: get_online_cpus() must not be used by any work which can be queued on that wq. And, yet another per-cpu thread... Personally I don't even think we need a BUG_ON() in work_on_cpu(), because I don't think cpu-hotplug path is so special. Not that I have a strong opinion though. 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/