Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

[Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 20 2006, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Paul:
> > 
> > Here's my version of your patch from yesterday.  It's basically the same, 
> > but I cleaned up the code in a few places and fixed a bug (the sign of idx 
> > in srcu_read_unlock).  Also I changed the init routine back to void, since 
> > it's no longer an error if the per-cpu allocation fails.
> > 
> > More importantly, I added a static initializer and included the fast-path 
> > in synchronize_srcu.  It's protected by the new symbol 
> > SMP__STORE_MB_LOAD_WORKS, which should be defined in arch-specific headers 
> > for those architectures where the store-mb-load pattern is safe.
> 
> Must we introduce memory allocations in srcu_read_lock()? It makes it
> much harder and nastier for me to use. I'd much prefer a failing
> init_srcu(), seems like a much better API.

Paul agrees with you that allocation failures in init_srcu() should be 
passed back to the caller, and I certainly don't mind doing so.

However we can't remove the memory allocation in srcu_read_lock().  That
was the point which started this whole thread: the per-cpu allocation
cannot be done statically, and some users of a static SRCU structure can't
easily call init_srcu() early enough.

Once the allocation succeeds, the overhead in srcu_read_lock() is minimal.

Alan

-
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/