linux-kernel - Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061130083144.GC29609@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:31:44 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org,
	davej@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency


* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com> wrote:

> So do we
> - Rethink the strategy of per-subsystem hotcpu-locks ?
> 
>   OR
>   
> - Think of a way to straighten out the super-convoluted cpufreq code ?

i'm still wondering what the conceptual source of this fundamental 
locking complexity in cpufreq (and hotplug) is - it is not intuitive to 
me at all. Could you try to explain that?

	Ingo
-
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/