On 07/06/12 13:30, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 11:39:09AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 07/05/12 17:24, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 04:45:58PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>> @@ -179,7 +184,7 @@ void __ref cpu_die(void) >>>> mb(); >>>> >>>> /* Tell __cpu_die() that this CPU is now safe to dispose of */ >>>> - complete(&cpu_died); >>>> + __this_cpu_write(cpu_state, CPU_DEAD); >>> Or you could do something like: >>> >>> RCU_NONIDLE(complete(&cpu_died)); >>> >>> This would tell RCU that it needed to pay attention to this CPU for >>> the duration of the "complete()" function call despite the CPU's being >>> idle. And might allow you to dispense with the rest of the patch. >> Great! I like that more since we get to keep the completion mechanism >> instead of a busy wait. >> >> Russell, which one would you prefer? Here's the other version > I think I prefer the version below. >
Ok. I put it in the patch tracker. -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- 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/
