[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Redesign cpu_hotplug locking.
    On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:46:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:41:55 +0530
    > > The right thing to do would be to
    > > do an audit and clean up the bad lock_cpu_hotplug() calls.
    > No, that won't fix it. For example, take a look at all the *callers* of
    > cpufreq_update_policy(). AFAICT they're all buggy. Fiddling with the
    > existing lock_cpu_hotplug() sites won't fix that. (Possibly this
    > particular problem can be fixed by checking that the relevant CPU is still
    > online after the appropriate locking has been taken - dunno).

    This is a different issue from the ones that relates to lock_cpu_hotplug().
    This one seems like a cpufreq internal locking problem.

    On a quick look at this, it seems to me that cpufreq_cpu_get() should
    do exactly what you said - use a spinlock in each cpufreq_cpu_data[] to
    protect the per-cpu flag and in cpufreq_cpu_get() check if
    !data and data->online == 0. They may have to do -

    static struct cpufreq_data {
    spinlock_t lock;
    int flag;
    struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
    } cpufreq_cpu_data[NR_CPUS];

    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: 2006-08-27 09:41    [W:0.021 / U:1.100 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site