Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion

2013-02-07 Thread Hillf Danton
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote: >>> Why does this matter? It's inside spinlock. What's being made better >>> by this change? >> >> IIUC the work should be deleted from the list, otherwise it'd trigger >> BUG_ON when the cpu

Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion

2013-02-06 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote: >> Why does this matter? It's inside spinlock. What's being made better >> by this change? > > IIUC the work should be deleted from the list, otherwise it'd trigger > BUG_ON when the cpu gets online again. Ah, okay, the original code w

Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion

2013-02-06 Thread Namhyung Kim
Hi Tejun and Hillf, On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:47:49 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:38:43PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: >> As handled by the kernel thread, work is dequeued first for further actions. > > Ditto as the previous patch. > >> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton >> --- >> >> -

Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion

2013-02-06 Thread Tejun Heo
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:38:43PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > As handled by the kernel thread, work is dequeued first for further actions. Ditto as the previous patch. > Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton > --- > > --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c Wed Feb 6 19:57:12 2013 > +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c

[PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion

2013-02-06 Thread Hillf Danton
As handled by the kernel thread, work is dequeued first for further actions. Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton --- --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c Wed Feb 6 19:57:12 2013 +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c Wed Feb 6 20:02:12 2013 @@ -334,23 +334,24 @@ static int __cpuinit cpu_stop_cpu_callba #ifdef CO