"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > From: Michael Wang <wang...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > With stop_machine() gone from the CPU offline path, we can't depend on > preempt_disable() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
Minor gripe: I'd prefer this paragraph to use the future rather than past tense, like: "Once stop_machine() is gone ... we won't be able to depend". Since you're not supposed to use the _stable() accessors without calling get_online_cpus_stable_atomic(), why not have get_online_cpus_stable_atomic() return a pointer to the stable cpumask? (Which is otherwise static, at least for debug). Might make the patches messier though... Oh, and I'd love to see actual benchmarks to make sure we've actually fixed a problem with this ;) Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
