Re: [PATCH 1/7] work_on_cpu: helper for doing task on a CPU.

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:25:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > If we add another wq for work_on_cpu(), then we add another hard-to-maintain
> > rule: get_online_cpus() must not be used by any work which can be queued
> > on that wq. And, yet another per-cpu thread...
>
> No, we don't have that rule!
>
> Because using Rusty's function with a seperate workqueue,
> we queue the work item as follows:
>
> 	 get_online_cpus();
> 	 queue_work_on(cpu, &on_each_cpu_wq, &wfc.work);
> 	 flush_work(&wfc.work);
> 	 put_online_cpus();
>
> The very fact that we've successfully queued the work-item means that
> no cpu-hotplug operation can occur till our work item finishes
> execution.

Ah yes, thanks for correcting me.

> Yes, we end up using additional resources in the form of another per-cpu
> threads. But is that so much of an issue?

Well, don't ask me... but the only reason why we need these threads
is that we want to make work_on_cpu() useable from cpu-hotplug path,
a bit strange ;)

Oleg.