On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:49:36AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > I originally thought of implementing this more similar to what you > specify, but then I came across a discussion in the mailing list where > it was NAKed adding more members to task_struct; > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/970273 > > Adding proper recursion (the way my initial implementation was going) > got ugly without modifying task_struct because get_online_cpus() is a > speed critical code path. Yeah, just don't let Linus hear you say that. get_online_cpus() is _not_ considered performance critical. > So I'm all for fixing the current code in a different way if that will > then be merged. So I'm not sure why you're poking at this horror show to begin with. ISTR you mentioning a lockdep splat for SKL, but failed to provide detail. Making the hotplug lock _more_ special to fix that is just wrong. Fix the retarded locking that lead to it. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
