[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0611161658170.2929-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:03:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...esys.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> - it makes it clear that this should be fixed, preferably by just having
> some way to initialize SRCU structs staticalyl. If we get that, the fix
> is to just replace the horrible "initialize by hand" with a static
> initializer once and for all.
>
> Hmm?
>
> Totally untested, but it compiles and it _looks_ sane. The overhead of the
> function call should be minimal, once things are initialized.
>
> Paul, it would be _really_ nice to have some way to just initialize that
> SRCU thing statically. This kind of crud is just crazy.
I looked into this back when SRCU was first added. It's essentially
impossible to do it, because the per-cpu memory allocation & usage APIs
are completely different for the static and the dynamic cases. They are a
real mess. I couldn't think up a way to construct any sort of uniform
interface to per-cpu memory, not without completely changing the guts of
the per-cpu stuff.
If you or someone else can fix that problem, I will be happy to change the
SRCU-based notifiers to work both ways.
Alan Stern
-
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