Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:15:31 -0700 | From | Ashok Raj <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be totally bizare |
| |
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:22:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > 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
Its probably ok for this case.
before introducing the ugly recursion we did try the preempt_disable() for cpufreq, and it worked for most all governers with preempt_disable(), but powernowk8 called set_cpus_allowed() in the callback path that threw out a scheduling while in atomic BUG().
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/10/31/239
> events on the local CPU (and I think "local CPU" is all that the wq code > cares about, no?) > > Linus
-- Cheers, Ashok Raj - Open Source Technology Center - 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/
| |