[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On 11/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> For general use, I believe that this has
> difficulties with the sequence of events I sent out on November 20th, see:
> ...
> I don't understand why an unlucky sequence of events mightn't be able
> to hang this __wait_event(). Suppose we did the atomic_dec_and_test(),
> then some other CPU executed xxx_read_unlock(), finding no one to awaken,
> then we execute the __wait_event()?

Please note how ->ctr[] is initialized,

atomic_set(sp->ctr + 0, 1); <---- 1, not 0
atomic_set(sp->ctr + 1, 0);

atomic_read(sp->ctr + idx) == 0 means that this counter is inactive,
nobody use it.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-23 22:51    [W:0.217 / U:1.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site