On Tuesday 10 February 2009 20:05:48 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:24:07 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > How about we make work_on_cpu spawn a temp thread; if you care, use > > something cleverer? Spawning a thread just isn't that slow. > > That's what > work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch does? Err, yeah. > > Meanwhile, I'll prepare patches to convert all the non-controversial cases > > (ie. smp_call_function-style ones). > > arch-x86-kernel-acpi-cstatec-avoid-using-work_on_cpu.patch > arch-x86-kernel-cpu-cpufreq-acpi-cpufreqc-avoid-using-work_on_cpu.patch > arch-x86-kernel-cpu-mcheck-mce_amd_64c-avoid-using-work_on_cpu.patch > > convert three work_on_cpu() callers. The drivers/pci/pci-driver.c one > is a bit problematic. OK, I've pulled these in to play with them. My main concern at the moment is getting all cpumask_ts removed from core & x86 code for 2.6.30, which usually means converting those save/restore to work_on_cpu or whatever. > I guess as long as we don't find a high frequency set_cpus_allowed() > callsite which can't be converted to smp_call_function_single() we'll > be OK. Yep. Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
