lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be totally bizare


On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> As a quick hack I made non-lock_cpu_hotplug()'ing versions of the 3 key
> workqueue functions (patch below). It works, it's correct, it's just so
> ugly that I'm almost too ashamed to post it. I haven't found a better
> solution yet though... time to take a step back I suppose.

That really is _way_ too ugly for words.

For 2.6.18, we may just have to leave the recursive locking in place, and
just remove the warning. With the recursive lock, if/when somebody needs
to take that lock early, the code can just do so, and then the inner
lock-taker ends up being a no-op.

Of course, that's why people want recursive locks in the first place, and
it's also why we've (largely successfully) have avoided them - it allows
for people being way too lazy about locking, and allows for really broken
schenarios like this.

I wonder if we could just make the workqueue code just run with preemption
disabled - that should also automatically protect against any CPU hotplug
events on the local CPU (and I think "local CPU" is all that the wq code
cares about, no?)

Linus
-
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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.063 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site