[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090609162808.GC2491@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:28:08 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
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>,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86/cpufreq: use cpumask_copy instead of =
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:46:44AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.
work_on_cpu()'s definition could probably use a fat comment describing
why it sucks.
Dave
--
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