On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:43:31 pm Tejun Heo wrote:
quoted text
> Hello, Peter.
> 
> On 03/11/2010 04:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > cpuhog as a name doesn't work for me, stop-machine had a name that
> > described its severity and impact, cpuhog makes me think of while(1);.
> >
> > Can't we keep the stop_machine name and make that a workqueue interface
> > like you propose?
> >
> > That way we'd end up with something like:
> > 
> > kernel/stop_machine.c
> >   int stop_cpu(int cpu, stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
> >   int stop_machine(struct cpumask *mask, stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
> 
> The distinction would be diabling of IRQ on each CPU.
> hog_[one_]cpu[s]() schedule highest priority task to, well, hog the
> cpu but doesn't affect contextless part of the cpu (irq, bh, whatnot).

I rather like the name.  And the stop_machine name is still there; it's just
using cpuhog rather than workqueues.

Ugly things should have ugly names.

For Patch 2/4 at least:

	Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

Great work Tejun!
Rusty.
--
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/