On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> As a quick hack I made non-lock_cpu_hotplug()'ing versions of the 3 key
> workqueue functions (patch below). It works, it's correct, it's just so
> ugly that I'm almost too ashamed to post it. I haven't found a better
> solution yet though... time to take a step back I suppose.
That really is _way_ too ugly for words.
For 2.6.18, we may just have to leave the recursive locking in place, and
just remove the warning. With the recursive lock, if/when somebody needs
to take that lock early, the code can just do so, and then the inner
lock-taker ends up being a no-op.
Of course, that's why people want recursive locks in the first place, and
it's also why we've (largely successfully) have avoided them - it allows
for people being way too lazy about locking, and allows for really broken
schenarios like this.
I wonder if we could just make the workqueue code just run with preemption
disabled - that should also automatically protect against any CPU hotplug
events on the local CPU (and I think "local CPU" is all that the wq code
cares about, no?)
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
