On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:28 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > in the unlikely case we schedule(), that seems expensive enough to want > > to make the spin case ever so slightly faster. > > OK, that makes sense, but I would comment that. Otherwise, it just looks > like another misuse of the unlikely annotation. OK, sensible enough. > > > Should we need to do a "get_cpu" or something? Couldn't the CPU disappear > > > between these two calls. Or does it do a stop-machine and the preempt > > > disable will protect us? > > > > Did you miss the preempt_disable() a bit up? > > No, let me rephrase it better. Does the preempt_disable protect against > another CPU from going off line? Does taking a CPU off line do a > stop_machine? Yes and yes. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
