[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:33:45 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Perhaps a better approach to the initialization problem would be to assume
> > > that either:
> > >
> > > 1. The srcu_struct will be initialized before it is used, or
> > >
> > > 2. When it is used before initialization, the system is running
> > > only one thread.
> >
> > Are these assumptions valid? If so, they would indeed simplify things
> > a bit.
> I don't know. Maybe Andrew can tell us -- is it true that the kernel runs
> only one thread up through the time the core_initcalls are finished?

I don't see why - a core_initcall could go off and do the
multithreaded-pci-probing thing, or it could call kernel_thread() or
anything. I doubt if any core_initcall functions _do_ do that, but there
are a lot of them.

> If not, can we create another initcall level that is guaranteed to run
> before any threads are spawned?

It's a simple and cheap matter to create a precore_initcall() - one would
need to document it carefully to be able to preserve whatever guarantees it

However by the time the initcalls get run, various thing are already
happening: SMP is up, the keventd threads are running, the CPU scheduler
migration threads are running, ksoftirqd, softlockup-detector, etc.
keventd is the problematic one.

So I guess you'd need a new linker section and a call from
do_pre_smp_initcalls() or thereabouts.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-18 05:57    [W:0.087 / U:2.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site