On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:33:45 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[email protected]> 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
needs.
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 [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]
