Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

[Mike Travis]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> But "[PATCH 1/3] work_on_cpu: dont try to get_online_cpus() in 
>> work_on_cpu." removes get_online_cpus/put_online_cpus, this means the 
>> work can run on the wrong CPU anyway. Or work_on_cpu() can hang forever 
>> if CPU has already gone away before queue_work_on().
>>
>> Confused.
> 
> The idea was to require work_on_cpu() users to be CPU hotplug-safe. But 
> ... Rusty pointed it out in the past that this might be fragile, and we 
> could put back the get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() calls.
> 
> Rusty, what do you think?
> 
> 	Ingo


I believe that is the intention, in that the caller should insure that
the cpu does not go offline.  But also as Rusty stated, the previous usages
of set_cpus_allowed did not always insure this, so it's at least not a
regression.

I'll put it on my todo list to check the references in tip/cpus4096 to see
where they stand on the get_online_cpus() issue.

Thanks,
Mike
--
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/