[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906090842120.6847@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86/cpufreq: use cpumask_copy instead of =
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> - if (check_supported_cpu(i))
> + if (work_on_cpu(i, check_supported_cpu, NULL) == 0)
> supported_cpus++;
Please STOP USING THAT HORRIBLE "work_on_cpu()" crap.
Is there any reason you do that? We've had to fix up the fallout from that
kind of crazy crap several times.
Just use a regular IPI. Use "smp_call_function_[single|many]()" instead.
See for example commit 01599fca6758d2cd133e78f87426fc851c9ea725, where
another "work_on_cpu()" thing was broken.
I don't understand why you guys keep on using that _known_ bad function.
The whole point of "work_on_cpu()" is for big, slow, and rare things. Not
as a random "let's make that CPU do this".
So stop it.
Linus
--
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