From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
davej@redhat.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:53:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061130115327.GB2324@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061130114346.GC23354@in.ibm.com>
* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> This is what is currently being done by cpufreq:
ok!
> a) get_some_cpu_hotplug_protection() [use either some global mechanism
> or a persubsystem mutex]
this bit is wrong i think. Any reason why it's not a per-CPU (but
otherwise global) array of mutexes that controls CPU hotplug - as per my
previous mail?
that would flatten the whole locking. Only one kind of lock taken,
recursive and scalable.
Then the mechanism that changes CPU frequency should take all these
hotplug locks on all (online) CPUs, and then first stop all processing
on all CPUs, and then do the frequency change, atomically. This is with
interrupts disabled everywhere /first/, and /without any additional
locking/. That would prevent any sort of interaction from other CPUs -
they'd all be sitting still with interrupts disabled.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-30 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-29 15:24 CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency Gautham R Shenoy
2006-11-29 21:05 ` Andrew Morton
2006-11-30 4:28 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-11-30 6:35 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-11-30 8:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30 8:52 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-12-01 1:43 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-12-01 8:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30 8:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30 10:24 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-11-30 11:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30 11:19 ` Andrew Morton
2006-11-30 11:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30 12:44 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-11-30 14:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30 19:40 ` Andrew Morton
2006-11-30 20:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30 11:43 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-11-30 11:53 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-11-30 12:19 ` Gautham R Shenoy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-12-06 18:27 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2006-12-07 7:06 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2006-12-07 12:50 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
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=20061130115327.GB2324@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox