[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a87acfaf-52b5-4234-b928-1b596dd61f31@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:34:03 +0300
From: Maksim Davydov <davydov-max@...dex-team.ru>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
den-plotnikov@...dex-team.ru, gpiccoli@...lia.com, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/split_lock: simplify reenabling
On 3/25/25 12:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Maksim Davydov <davydov-max@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
>
>> sld_setup() is called before setup_per_cpu_areas(), thus it can't be
>> used for this purpose. Another way is to implement independent
>> initcall for the initialization, that's what has been done.
>
>> + * Per-CPU delayed_work can't be statically initialized properly because
>> + * the struct address is unknown. Thus per-CPU delayed_work structures
>> + * have to be initialized during kernel initialization and after calling
>> + * setup_per_cpu_areas().
>> + */
>> +static int __init setup_split_lock_delayed_work(void)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + struct delayed_work *work = per_cpu_ptr(&sl_reenable, cpu);
>> +
>> + INIT_DELAYED_WORK(work, __split_lock_reenable);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +pure_initcall(setup_split_lock_delayed_work);
>
> Oh, I didn't realize sld_setup() couldn't be used for this - thx for
> the followup!
>
> Ingo
Thanks for reviewing :-)
--
Best regards,
Maksim Davydov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists