[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100618130921.GC9045@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:09:22 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Unified NMI delayed call mechanism
> You generally want to pass more information along anyway, now your
> callback function needs to go look for it. Much better to pass a
> work_struct like thing around that is contained in the state it needs.
But how would you allocate the work queue in an NMI?
If it's only a single instance (like this bit) it can be always put
into a per cpu variable.
-Andi
--
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