From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't migrate the kworker to another CPU Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:53:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20120917205355.GK18677@google.com> References: <20120917201721.GJ18677@google.com> <20120917203654.GA6541@liondog.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/Mst6b5HVtiYC7CIIOnn739cOkk68N8nMCuGF7kV3tM=; b=IeCyCrHQSl+hJ4iNx/DN2ZcFbs9Q3z/CcVWtjn2vFM5IYLB7gEZzMzJjzbCsOnTuea 8KSV8NDUNdEjfpE+2nelYtSfPhCQgAxIF3C/3HWB7OcGpC+WxcFPdQuxCISND0Xe+Cif dx922Zflm5Sur2/f6Tw8Kcl+C4pCAjl6bSqA5QtghspM0vCY5lSg7bluYaorw5XNMnJp LmYHcb2+X4XcaSVKk/SMQvtQ6P5plXzS/jSW9YH/8QMR7F4r2537QKzoAHFxE2kHNseq QhlGgtYqae8V8dN52yR2Pcbi/oBYU+sxqEz2E08cdmrniomaQMnJ7jKBjwQ8efCtq/dT 4fDg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120917203654.GA6541@liondog.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Borislav Petkov , Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, Andreas Herrmann On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:36:54PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Wouldn't it be much simpler to carve out the piece after > set_cpus_allowed_ptr(), put it in a sub-function called > __powernowk8_target() and call it with smp_call_function_single instead > of defining another work item? > > Would the workqueue code handle that or are there any other issues? The function grabs a mutex. smp_call_function wouldn't be too happy about that. Thanks. -- tejun