Re: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be totally bizare

[Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:22:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 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 

Its probably ok for this case.

before introducing the ugly recursion we did try the preempt_disable()
for cpufreq, and it worked for most all governers with preempt_disable(), 
but powernowk8 called set_cpus_allowed() in the callback path that 
threw out a scheduling while in atomic BUG().

http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/10/31/239


> events on the local CPU (and I think "local CPU" is all that the wq code 
> cares about, no?)
> 
> 		Linus

-- 
Cheers,
Ashok Raj
- Open Source Technology Center
-
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/