On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:04:41AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> > This is the version 2 of the refcount based cpu-hotplug "locking"
> > implementation.
>
> Uggh. This introduces a global lock that has to be taken always when
> scanning over
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:17:54PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:04:41AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the version 2 of the refcount based cpu-hotplug "lo
On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:04:41AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > > This is the version 2 of the refcount based cpu-hotplug "locking"
> > > implementation.
> >
> > Uggh. This introduces a global lock
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> This is the version 2 of the refcount based cpu-hotplug "locking"
> implementation.
Uggh. This introduces a global lock that has to be taken always when
scanning over cpus? Is multipe cpus are scanning over processor lists then
we will get into s
Hello everyone,
This is the version 2 of the refcount based cpu-hotplug "locking"
implementation.
It incorporates the review comments from the first posting which
can be found here --> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/16/118.
Changes since v1:
- !CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU part is now handled correctly, t
5 matches
Mail list logo