From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753723Ab2GTV6r (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:58:47 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:40863 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753674Ab2GTV6k (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:58:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:58:35 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] workqueue: perform cpu down operations from low priority cpu_notifier() Message-ID: <20120720215835.GB6823@google.com> References: <1342545149-3515-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1342545149-3515-2-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20120720215207.GA18841@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120720215207.GA18841@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Paul. On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:52:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Fix it by using different priorities for up and down notifiers - high > > priority for up operations and low priority for down operations. > > Cool!!! > > This certainly provides another data point in favor of running down > notifiers in the opposite order from up notifiers. ;-) Yeah, I was thinking about that. I don't think converting CPU notifiers would take a lot of work in terms of both auditing and converting. We only have several priorities. > This series passes light rcutorture/hotplug testing, will be testing > it more. Great! -- tejun