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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
