On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 02:45:56AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/17, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> > 1) ... workqueue_cpu_callback(...)
...
> Yes, but this is harmless. cpu-hotplug callbacks are not time-critical,
> and cpu_down/cpu_up happens not often, and LIST_HEAD(workqueues) is not
> very
On 02/17, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> This patch looks OK to me.
Thanks for looking at this!
> But while reading this I got some doubts
> in nearby places, so BTW 2 small questions:
>
> 1) ... workqueue_cpu_callback(...)
> {
> ...
> list_for_each_entry(wq, &workqueues, list) {
>
Hi Oleg,
This patch looks OK to me. But while reading this I got some doubts
in nearby places, so BTW 2 small questions:
1) ... workqueue_cpu_callback(...)
{
...
list_for_each_entry(wq, &workqueues, list) {
cwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu);
switc
When cpu_populated_map was introduced, it was supposed that cwq->thread can
survive after CPU_DEAD, that is why we never shrink cpu_populated_map.
This is not very nice, we can safely remove the already dead CPU from the map.
The only required change is that destroy_workqueue() must hold the hotpl
4 matches
Mail list logo
