From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mc@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
david@fromorbit.com,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than online CPUs
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:06:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111220140628.GD23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EF084A4.3000106@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 06:20:44PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > Hey, actually there is a simple solution: just nip it (or rather delay it)
> > in the bud ;) That is, we watch out for CPU_UP_PREPARE event and lock it
> > up there itself using our spinlock.. that way, that cpu will not come up
> > until we are done executing br_write_unlock(). In fact, we can even fail
> > the onlining of that cpu by returning appropriate value from our callback,
> > but that would be too harsh.. so we can settle for delaying the cpu online
Eeeek... Are you serious about leaving a spinlock grabbed by notifier
callback and not released until another callback call? That would be one
hell of a constraint on what these notifiers can do - _nothing_ between
these calls (including other notifier callbacks, etc.) would be allowed
to block.
That sounds extremely brittle...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-20 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-19 3:36 [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than online CPUs mengcong
2011-12-19 4:11 ` Al Viro
2011-12-19 5:00 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-19 6:07 ` mengcong
2011-12-19 7:31 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 9:12 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-12-19 11:03 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 12:11 ` Al Viro
2011-12-19 20:23 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 20:52 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 4:56 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 6:27 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 7:28 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 9:37 ` mengcong
2011-12-20 10:36 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 11:08 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 12:50 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 14:06 ` Al Viro [this message]
2011-12-20 14:35 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 17:59 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 19:12 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 19:58 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 22:27 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-20 23:31 ` Al Viro
2011-12-21 21:15 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-21 22:02 ` Al Viro
2011-12-21 22:12 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 7:02 ` Al Viro
2011-12-22 7:20 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 8:08 ` Al Viro
2011-12-22 8:17 ` Andi Kleen
2011-12-22 8:39 ` Al Viro
2011-12-22 8:22 ` Andi Kleen
2011-12-20 7:30 ` mengcong
2011-12-20 7:37 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 23:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-20 4:05 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111220140628.GD23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.rutecki@gmail.com \
--cc=mc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.