linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't migrate the kworker to another CPU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120917205355.GK18677@google.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:53:55 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@....net>,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't
 migrate the kworker to another CPU

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:36:54PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Wouldn't it be much simpler to carve out the piece after
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr(), put it in a sub-function called
> __powernowk8_target() and call it with smp_call_function_single instead
> of defining another work item?
> 
> Would the workqueue code handle that or are there any other issues?

The function grabs a mutex.  smp_call_function wouldn't be too happy
about that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/