lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't migrate the kworker to another CPU
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> So, with work_on_cpu() reimplementation just posted[1], we can do the
> following instead. Functionally it's about the same but less ugly.
> Ugly as it may be, I think the previous open coded version is better
> suited as a fix and for -stable. Thoughts?

I have to say, since the work_on_cpu() reimplementation seems to
seriously simplify the code, and removes more lines than it adds, and
makes this patch smaller than your original patch, I would personally
prefer this approach instead anyway.

It's what we want long-range, isn't it? And it's smaller and simpler.
Sure, it might be a *conceptually* bigger change, but since it's both
prettier and *practically* smaller, I do like it more. Even at this
stage of -rc (and even for backporting to -stable).

Can we get some quick testing of this two-patch series from the people
who saw the original K8 cpufreq issue? Duncan?

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-18 22:41    [W:0.095 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site