Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other thanonline CPUs

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 01:53:42AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> If this new definition of our requirement is acceptable (correct me if I am
> wrong), then we can do something like the following patch, while still
> retaining br locks as non-blocking.
> 
> We make a copy of the current cpu_online_mask, and lock the per-cpu locks of
> all those cpus. Then while unlocking, we unlock the per-cpu locks of these cpus
> (by using that temporary copy of cpu_online_mask we created earlier), without
> caring about the cpus actually online at that moment.
> IOW, we do lock-unlock on the same set of cpus, and that too, without missing
> the complete lock-unlock sequence in any of them. Guaranteed.

	And what's to stop a process on a newly added CPU from _not_
spinning in br_read_lock(), even though br_write_unlock() hadn't been
done yet?
--
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/