lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > Perhaps a better approach to the initialization problem would be to assume
> > that either:
> >
> > 1. The srcu_struct will be initialized before it is used, or
> >
> > 2. When it is used before initialization, the system is running
> > only one thread.
>
> Are these assumptions valid? If so, they would indeed simplify things
> a bit.

I don't know. Maybe Andrew can tell us -- is it true that the kernel runs
only one thread up through the time the core_initcalls are finished?

If not, can we create another initcall level that is guaranteed to run
before any threads are spawned?

> For the moment, I cheaped out and used a mutex_trylock. If this can block,
> I will need to add a separate spinlock to guard per_cpu_ref allocation.

I haven't looked at your revised patch yet... But it's important to keep
things as simple as possible.

> Hmmm... How to test this? Time for the wrapper around alloc_percpu()
> that randomly fails, I guess. ;-)

Do you really want things to continue in a highly degraded mode when
percpu allocation fails? Maybe it would be better just to pass the
failure back to the caller.

Alan Stern

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-18 05:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site