[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100730165522.22dc982b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:55:22 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as
early_initcall()
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:57:37 -0700
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
> Mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() and thus it will be initialized
> before smp bringup. init_workqueues() registers for the hotcpu notifier
> and thus it should cope with the processors that are brought online after
> the workqueues are initialized.
>
> x86 smp bringup code uses workqueues and uses a workaround for the
> cold boot process (as the workqueues are initialized post smp_init()).
> Marking init_workqueues() as early_initcall() will pave the way for
> cleaning up this code.
>
I sure hope this has been tested against linux-next.
kernel/workqueue.c has been vastly changed and -tip doesn't know about
that. linux-next should include -tip and is hence a better tree to
develop and test against.
AFAICT the main thing which needs checking is that the new
init_workqueues() doesn't do anything which requires that
sched_init_smp() has been executed.
The patch otherwise looks OK and killing that hack in the x86 code was
most merciful.
for_each_gcwq_cpu(), for_each_online_gcwq_cpu() and for_each_cwq_cpu()
make me cry.
--
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