[PATCH 0/1] (Was: introduce for_each_process_thread_{break,continue}() helpers)

From	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	[PATCH 0/1] (Was: introduce for_each_process_thread_{break,continue}() helpers)
Date	2016-07-26 21:00 +0200
Message-ID	<rZfK9-5Fs-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rYQVr-6No-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> IMHO this makes sense in any case, but mostly this is preparation for
> another change: show_state_filter() should be preemptible. But this needs
> more discussion, I'll write another email/patch when I fully understand
> the hard-lockup caused by sysrq-t.

Yes, we need to do something with show_state_filter() anyway, I think.

OTOH, I believe this simple change in multi_cpu_stop() makes sense too
regardless.

Oleg.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 0/1] (Was: introduce  for_each_process_thread_{break,continue}() helpers) Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-07-26 21:00 +0200
  [PATCH 1/1] stop_machine: touch_nmi_watchdog() after  MULTI_STOP_PREPARE Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-07-26 21:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/1] stop_machine: touch_nmi_watchdog() after  MULTI_STOP_PREPARE Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-07-27 10:10 +0200
    [tip:core/urgent] stop_machine: Touch_nmi_watchdog() after  MULTI_STOP_PREPARE tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2016-07-27 12:50 +0200

csiph-web