Re: [PATCH 2/4] stop_machine: reimplement using cpuhog

[Tejun Heo]

On 03/09/2010 04:09 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:39:40AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 03/09/2010 04:37 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>>> How cpuhog can make a difference? Afaics, we shouldn't pass a
>>>> blocking callback to hog_cpus/hog_one_cpu.
>>>
>>> Well, it might me true that this shouldn't be done. But I don't see
>>> a reason why in general it wouldn't work to pass a function that
>>> would block.  So it's just a matter of time until somebody uses it
>>> for such a purpose.  For the current stop_machine implementation it
>>> would be broken to pass a blocking function (preemption disabled,
>>> interrupts disabled).
>>
>> Well, all current users don't block and it definitely can be enforced
>> by turning off preemption around the callback.  stop_machine() uses
>> busy waiting for every state transition so something else blocking on
>> a cpu could waste a lot of cpu cycles on other cpus even if the wait
>> is guaranteed to be finite.  Would that sooth your concern?
> 
> Yes, enforcing non blocking functions would be good.

Alright, will refresh and post the second round.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/