Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() | From | Suresh Siddha <> | Date | Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:48:10 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:57:37 -0700 > Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote: > > > Mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() and thus it will be initialized > > before smp bringup. init_workqueues() registers for the hotcpu notifier > > and thus it should cope with the processors that are brought online after > > the workqueues are initialized. > > > > x86 smp bringup code uses workqueues and uses a workaround for the > > cold boot process (as the workqueues are initialized post smp_init()). > > Marking init_workqueues() as early_initcall() will pave the way for > > cleaning up this code. > > > > I sure hope this has been tested against linux-next. > kernel/workqueue.c has been vastly changed and -tip doesn't know about > that. linux-next should include -tip and is hence a better tree to > develop and test against. > > AFAICT the main thing which needs checking is that the new > init_workqueues() doesn't do anything which requires that > sched_init_smp() has been executed. > > The patch otherwise looks OK and killing that hack in the x86 code was > most merciful. > > for_each_gcwq_cpu(), for_each_online_gcwq_cpu() and for_each_cwq_cpu() > make me cry.
hmm.. too many changes in linux-next.
Yes, as far as these patches are concerned, they work against linux-next aswell. Just posted -v2 which is on top of linux-next. ia64 also had the same issue, addressed in -v2 aswell.
thanks, suresh
| |