From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932554Ab2IQUyG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:54:06 -0400
Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:52720 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932242Ab2IQUx7 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:53:59 -0400
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:53:55 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>,
        Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't
 migrate the kworker to another CPU
Message-ID: <20120917205355.GK18677@google.com>
References: <20120917201721.GJ18677@google.com>
 <20120917203654.GA6541@liondog.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120917203654.GA6541@liondog.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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