On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 12:47 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 16:35:53 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:56 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Looks like this will be fixed by Andrew's work-on-cpu-in-own-thread
> > > patch which I just put out the pull request for.
> >
> > Would it make sense to teach it about a short-circuit like:
> >
> > work_on_cpu() {
> >
> > if (cpumask_weight(current->cpus_allowed) == 1 &&
> > smp_processor_id() == cpu)
> > return do_work_right_here();
>
> Does that happen much? I guess put a counter in and see?
Ego spotted the case where cpufreq calls it from an cpu-affine
workqueue, it seems to me in that case its desirable to have the
short-cut, and currently that's needed for correctness too as it will
generate this circular lock thingy.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
