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];
Thanks
Dipankar
-
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]
