[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwt9Wd9cwk3B4U0+B+EyBJm8oG0r0ADQvEa0D4HmrMWQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "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 Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> So, with work_on_cpu() reimplementation just posted[1], we can do the
> following instead. Functionally it's about the same but less ugly.
> Ugly as it may be, I think the previous open coded version is better
> suited as a fix and for -stable. Thoughts?
I have to say, since the work_on_cpu() reimplementation seems to
seriously simplify the code, and removes more lines than it adds, and
makes this patch smaller than your original patch, I would personally
prefer this approach instead anyway.
It's what we want long-range, isn't it? And it's smaller and simpler.
Sure, it might be a *conceptually* bigger change, but since it's both
prettier and *practically* smaller, I do like it more. Even at this
stage of -rc (and even for backporting to -stable).
Can we get some quick testing of this two-patch series from the people
who saw the original K8 cpufreq issue? Duncan?
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