All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall()
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:55:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100730165522.22dc982b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100730215751.690706748@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com>

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:57:37 -0700
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:

> Mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() and thus it will be initialized
> before smp bringup. init_workqueues() registers for the hotcpu notifier
> and thus it should cope with the processors that are brought online after
> the workqueues are initialized.
> 
> x86 smp bringup code uses workqueues and uses a workaround for the
> cold boot process (as the workqueues are initialized post smp_init()).
> Marking init_workqueues() as early_initcall() will pave the way for
> cleaning up this code.
> 

I sure hope this has been tested against linux-next. 
kernel/workqueue.c has been vastly changed and -tip doesn't know about
that.  linux-next should include -tip and is hence a better tree to
develop and test against.

AFAICT the main thing which needs checking is that the new
init_workqueues() doesn't do anything which requires that
sched_init_smp() has been executed.

The patch otherwise looks OK and killing that hack in the x86 code was
most merciful.

for_each_gcwq_cpu(), for_each_online_gcwq_cpu() and for_each_cwq_cpu()
make me cry.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-07-30 23:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-07-30 21:57 [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() Suresh Siddha
2010-07-30 21:57 ` [patch 2/2] x86, smp: use workqueues unconditionally during do_boot_cpu() Suresh Siddha
2010-07-30 23:55 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-07-31  0:48   ` [patch 1/2] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() Suresh Siddha
2010-07-31 10:29     ` Tejun Heo
2010-07-31 10:27   ` Tejun Heo
2010-08-01  9:54   ` [PATCH wq#for-next] workqueue: explain for_each_*cwq_cpu() iterators Tejun Heo
2010-08-01 11:07 ` [PATCH] workqueue: mark init_workqueues() as early_initcall() Tejun Heo
2010-08-02 18:41   ` Suresh Siddha
2010-08-04 13:43     ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100730165522.22dc982b.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.