[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060726141531.A22927@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:15:31 -0700
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be totally bizare
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:22:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Of course, that's why people want recursive locks in the first place, and
> it's also why we've (largely successfully) have avoided them - it allows
> for people being way too lazy about locking, and allows for really broken
> schenarios like this.
>
> I wonder if we could just make the workqueue code just run with preemption
> disabled - that should also automatically protect against any CPU hotplug
Its probably ok for this case.
before introducing the ugly recursion we did try the preempt_disable()
for cpufreq, and it worked for most all governers with preempt_disable(),
but powernowk8 called set_cpus_allowed() in the callback path that
threw out a scheduling while in atomic BUG().
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/10/31/239
> events on the local CPU (and I think "local CPU" is all that the wq code
> cares about, no?)
>
> Linus
--
Cheers,
Ashok Raj
- Open Source Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists