On 12/06/2012 02:27 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 02:01:35AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> Yes, that _sounds_ sufficient, but IMHO it won't be, in practice. The >> *number* of call-sites that you need to convert from preempt_disable/enable >> to get/put_online_cpus_atomic() won't be too many, however the *frequency* >> of usage of those call-sites can potentially be very high. > > I don't think that will be the case and, even if it is, doing it this > way would make it difficult to tell. The right thing to do is > replacing stop_machine with finer grained percpu locking first. > Refining it further should happen iff that isn't enough and there > isn't an simpler solution. So, let's please do the simple conversion > first. >
Hmm, OK, that sounds like a good plan. So I'll drop the "light" and "full" variants for now and work on providing a straight-forward get/put_online_cpus_atomic() APIs. Thank you! Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
