[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090204073636.30f15339.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:36:36 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: travis@....com, mingo@...hat.com, davej@...hat.com,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:11:35 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 13:31:11 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:14:31 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > > I think you're right though: smp_call_function_single (or neat wrappers)
> > > where possible, work_on_cpu which can fail for the others, and we'll just
> > > have to plumb in the error returns.
> >
> > I bet a lot of those can use plain old schedule_work_on().
>
> Which is where work_on_cpu started: a little wrapper around schedule_work_on.
>
> We're going in circles, no?
No, we've made some progress. We have a better understanding of what
the restrictions, shortcomings and traps are in this stuff. We've
learned (surprise!) that a one-size-fits-all big hammer wasn't such a
great idea.
Proposed schedule_work_on() rule: either the flush_work() caller or the
callback should not hold any explicit or implicit sleeping locks.
Quick scan:
arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c:native_machine_shutdown()
I think this can/should continue to use set_cpus_allowed().
Although it could be converted to schedule_work_on(), as long as the
scheduler is still working properly at this time.
x86 microcode:
This code is just nuts. What's the point in pinning itself to a
CPU for the act of loading the microcode into main memory? It's only
the loading of the microcode which should care about which CPU
executes the code. ie: apply_microcode().
The code needs some laundering, switch to schedule_work_on().
Ensure that the callback functions don't take microcode_mutex.
arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c:
It's a kernel thread. Add kthread_bind() to caller, done.
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.c:
Switch to rdmsr_on_cpu() and friends
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c
Could get similar treatment (needs new cpuid_on_cpu()?). Looks
like schedule_work_on() would be OK to use as well.
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-ich.c
Use rdmsr_on_cpu().
arch/blackfin/kernel/ipipe.c
Use kthread_bind()
arch/arm/mach-integrator/cpu.c
Not sure.
arch/sparc/kernel/us3_cpufreq.c
Use smp_call_function_single(). Write sparc64_get_clock_tick_on_cpu().
arch/sparc/kernel/us2e_cpufreq.c
Ditto
arch/sparc/kernel/sysfs.c
If sun4v_mmustat_info() can be called from interrupt, use
smp_call_function_single(). Otherwise schedule_work_on().
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/rtasd.c
Ditto
arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
Ditto
arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
Blah. Looks like schedule_work_on() will be OK.
arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
NFI what this does
arch/sh/kernel/cpufreq.c
schedule_work_on()
arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/sn_hwperf.c
schedule_work_on()
arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c:
schedule_work_on()
arch/ia64/kernel/topology.c:
schedule_work_on()
arch/ia64/kernel/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c:
schedule_work_on()
mm/pdflush.c:
wtf what the heck is all that stuff and who added it? weird.
Leave it alone I guess. Can admins manually move kernel threads to
other CPUs?
mm/vmscan.c:
switch to kthread_bind()
net/sunrpc/svc.c:
switch to kthread_bind()
kernel/kmod.c:
switch to kthreads, write then switch to kthread_bind_mask().
drivers/firmware/dcdbas.c:
smp_call_function_single()
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_main.c:
kthread_bind()
drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c:
already done
--
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