[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061130110315.GA30460@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:03:15 +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:
> a) cpufreq maintain's it's own cpumask in the variable
> policy->affected_cpus and says : If a frequency change is issued to
> any one of the cpu's in the affected_cpus mask, you change frequency
> on all cpus in the mask. So this needs to be consistent with
> cpu_online map and hence cpu hotplug aware. Furthermore, we don't want
> cpus in this mask to go down when we are trying to change frequencies
> on them. The function which drives the frequency change in
> cpufreq-core is cpufreq_driver_target and it needs cpu-hotplug
> protection.
couldnt this complexity be radically simplified by having new kernel
infrastructure that does something like:
" 'gather' all CPUs mentioned in <mask> via scheduling a separate
helper-kthread on every CPU that <mask> specifies, disable all
interrupts, and execute function <fn> once all CPUs have been
'gathered' - and release all CPUs once <fn> has executed on each of
them."
?
This would be done totally serialized and while holding the hotplug
lock, so no CPU could go away or arrive while this operation is going
on.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists