[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090203121147.GB19979@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:11:47 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: +
work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch
added to -mm tree
* akpm@...ux-foundation.org <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: work_on_cpu(): rewrite it to create a kernel thread on demand
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>
> The various implemetnations and proposed implemetnations of work_on_cpu()
> are vulnerable to various deadlocks because they all used queues of some
> form.
>
> Unrelated pieces of kernel code thus gained dependencies wherein if one
> work_on_cpu() caller holds a lock which some other work_on_cpu() callback
> also takes, the kernel could rarely deadlock.
>
> Fix this by creating a short-lived kernel thread for each work_on_cpu()
> invokation.
>
> This is not terribly fast, but the only current caller of work_on_cpu() is
> pci_call_probe().
hm, it's quite ugly as well, and wasteful with resources.
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