Re: [PATCH 10/43] stop_machine: reimplement without using workqueue
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Mon Mar 01 2010 - 10:43:40 EST
On 03/02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, again.
> On 02/28/2010 11:34 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> @@ -164,19 +259,18 @@ int __stop_machine(int (*fn)(void *), void *data, const struct cpumask *cpus)
> >> idle.fn = chill;
> >> idle.data = NULL;
> >> + smp_wmb(); /* -> stop_cpu()::set_current_state() */
> >> ...
> >> + for_each_online_cpu(i)
> >> + wake_up_process(*per_cpu_ptr(stop_machine_threads, i));
> > Afaics, this smp_wmb() is not needed, wake_up_process() (try_to_wake_up)
> > should ensure we can't race with set_current_state() + check_condition.
> > It does, note the wmb() in try_to_wake_up().
> Yeap, the initial version was like that and it was awkward to explain
> in the comment in stop_cpu() so I basically put it there as a
> documentation anchor.
> Do you think removing it would be better?
No, I just wanted to understand what I have missed. This applies to all
my questions in this thread ;)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/