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

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

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Jens Axboe wrote:

> > > 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.
> 
> It's not about the overhead, it's about a potentially problematic
> allocation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "problematic allocation".  If you
successfully call init_srcu_struct then the allocation will be taken care
of.  Later calls to srcu_read_lock won't experience any slowdowns or
problems.

If your call to init_srcu_struct isn't successful then you have to decide 
how to handle it.  You can ignore the failure and live with degraded 
performance (caused by cache-line contention and repeated attempts to do 
the per-cpu allocation), or you can give up entirely.

Does this answer your objection?  If not, can you explain in more detail 
what other features you would like?

Alan Stern

-
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/