From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: ego@in.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@elte.hu, torvalds@osdl.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle per-subsystem mutexes for CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU not set.
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:57:02 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061124042702.GA4666@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061123125446.3cd9ff0f.akpm@osdl.org>
Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Usage:
> > a) Each hotcpu aware subsystem defines the hotcpu_mutex as follows
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > DEFINE_MUTEX(my_hotcpu_mutex);
> > #endif
> >
> > b) The hotcpu aware subsystem uses
> > cpuhotplug_mutex_lock(&my_hotcpu_mutex)
> > and
> > cpuhotplug_mutex_unlock(&my_hotcpu_mutex)
> > instead of the usual mutex_lock/mutex_unlock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
> >
> > ---
> > include/linux/cpu.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
[snip]
> > extern void unlock_cpu_hotplug(void);
> > #define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri) { \
> > @@ -86,6 +98,9 @@ extern void unlock_cpu_hotplug(void);
> > int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu);
> > #define cpu_is_offline(cpu) unlikely(!cpu_online(cpu))
> > #else
> > +#define cpuhotplug_mutex_lock(m) do { } while (0)
> > +#define cpuhotplug_mutex_unlock(m) do { } while (0)
> > +
>
> But what to do about the now-unneeded mutex?
>
> We can just leave it there if CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n but then we'll get
> unused variable warnings for statically-defined mutexes.
Why even leave it there?
Can't we do something as follows, which has already been suggested in
the patch description:
Each hotcpu aware subsystem defines the hotcpu_mutex as follows
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
[static] DEFINE_MUTEX(my_hotcpu_mutex);
#endif
That way, we won't be having any unneeded mutexes at all.
> To fix that would require either
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> #define DEFINE_MUTEX_HOTPLUG_CPU(m) DEFINE_MUTEX(m)
> #else
> #define DEFINE_MUTEX_HOTPLUG_CPU(m)
> #endif
>
Yup, this won't work. Wish we could cook up something like this, but
alas! Most of these mutexes are defined with the static keyword,
which causes compile errors with CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n.
> or
>
> #define cpuhotplug_mutex_lock(m) do { (void)(m); } while (0)
>
>
> Given that the former won't work, I'd suggest the latter ;)
>
regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-24 4:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-23 13:18 [PATCH] Handle per-subsystem mutexes for CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU not set Gautham R Shenoy
2006-11-23 20:54 ` Andrew Morton
2006-11-24 4:27 ` Gautham R Shenoy [this message]
2006-11-24 12:13 ` [PATCH][v2] " Gautham R Shenoy
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=20061124042702.GA4666@in.ibm.com \
--to=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=vatsa@in.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox