On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

quoted text
> > But we could delay CPU_DOWN in the handler for the slab until we know that 
> > the cache_reaper is no longer running?
> 
> Hmm... I don't undestand this. We can delay CPU_DOWN if we cancel cache_reaper
> like you did in the previous patch. Did you mean this? If yes - then yes :)

Yes sure.

quoted text
> Worse, we can have 2 handlers running in parallel on the same CPU. But this
> is fixed by your previous patch, I believe.

Good.

Here is the patch against 2.6.20-rc6-mm2. CPU_DOWN_PREPARE and
CPU_DOWN_FAILED somehow vanished in mm?





Shutdown cache_reaper when cpu goes down

Shutdown the cache_reaper in slab.c if the cpu is brought down
and set the cache_reap.func to NULL. Otherwise hotplug shuts
down the reaper for good.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>

Index: linux-2.6.20-rc6-mm1/mm/slab.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.20-rc6-mm1.orig/mm/slab.c	2007-01-29 14:18:37.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.20-rc6-mm1/mm/slab.c	2007-01-29 14:21:18.119155877 -0600
@@ -1271,6 +1271,17 @@ static int __cpuinit cpuup_callback(stru
 		start_cpu_timer(cpu);
 		break;
 #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+  	case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
+		/* Shutdown cache reaper */
+		cancel_rearming_delayed_work(&per_cpu(reap_work, cpu));
+		per_cpu(reap_work, cpu).work.func = NULL;
+
+  		mutex_lock(&cache_chain_mutex);
+  		break;
+  	case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
+  		mutex_unlock(&cache_chain_mutex);
+		start_cpu_timer(cpu);
+  		break;
 	case CPU_DEAD:
 		/*
 		 * Even if all the cpus of a node are down, we don't free the
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/