Re: [PATCH RFC] Priority boosting for preemptible RCU

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 01:51:21PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Even if we use another cpumask_t, whenever a cpu goes down or comes up,
> > > that will be reflected in this map, no? So what's the additional
> > > advantage of using it?
> > 
> > The additional map allows the code to use something other than the
> > lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug, and also is robust against any
> > changes to the hotplug synchronization mechanism.  Might well be
> > better just to use the current hotplug synchronization mechanism,
> > but I was feeling paranoid.  ;-)
> 
> If it was doing something more complicated in the critical section other
> than summing stuff up, I would probably recommend going for another map
> instead of using the current hotplug synchronization. But for this case
> the current hotplug synchronization would work just fine.
> 
> I can very well understand your paranoia, but let me assure you, you are
> not the only one ;-)

OK, will try to keep an open mind...  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
-
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/