On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:19:43 +0200 "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, thanks. My opinion is that mmiotrace can live well enough with runtime-disabling extra cpus when tracing starts. Multi-cpu effects to hardware access are not really in the focus but seeing the access in the first place. I'd rather wait to see if the per-cpu page table feature starts to evolve. I quickly read through your code and tried to come up with race scenarios, but failed. Ok, one question which might be far fetched: is there a window for things to go wrong, when one cpu has faulted and is submitting the NMI, but another cpu is managing cpus' online state at the time? Is there a place in the cpu state management that might fault at a point where cpu maps are inconsistent? I doubt, but I don't know. And of course this could be a problem only when something is bringing cpus on- or offline. Btw. isn't reserving a cpumask_t variable from the stack discouraged because it might have to deal with thousands of cpus and consume a lot of memory? Thanks. -- Pekka Paalanen http://www.iki.fi/pq/ --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 006/196] Chinese: add translation of oops-tracing.txt |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Eric W. Biederman | [PATCH] nfs lockd reclaimer: Convert to kthread API |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
