Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:21:57 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync |
| |
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Paul, it would be _really_ nice to have some way to just initialize > > that SRCU thing statically. This kind of crud is just crazy. > > I looked into this back when SRCU was first added. It's essentially > impossible to do it, because the per-cpu memory allocation & usage APIs > are completely different for the static and the dynamic cases.
I don't think that's how you'd want to do it.
There's no way to do an initialization of a percpu allocation statically. That's pretty obvious.
What I'd suggest instead, is to make the allocation dynamic, and make it inside the srcu functions (kind of like I did now, but I did it at a higher level).
Doing it at the high level was trivial right now, but we may well end up hitting this problem again if people start using SRCU more. Right now I suspect the cpufreq notifier is the only thing that uses SRCU, and it already showed this problem with SRCU initializers.
So I was more thinking about moving my "one special case high level hack" down lower, down to the SRCU level, so that we'll never see _more_ of those horrible hacks. We'll still have the hacky thing, but at least it will be limited to a single place - the SRCU code itself.
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/
|  |