From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751146AbWGZVGw (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:06:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751154AbWGZVGw (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:06:52 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:58501 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751146AbWGZVGv (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:06:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:58:10 -0700 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Dave Jones , Ingo Molnar , Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, Ashok Raj , linux-kernel , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] Reorganize the cpufreq cpu hotplug locking to not be totally bizare Message-ID: <20060726205810.GB23488@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <200607242023_MC3-1-C5FE-CADB@compuserve.com> <20060725185449.GA8074@elte.hu> <1153855844.8932.56.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1153921207.3381.21.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060726155114.GA28945@redhat.com> <1153942954.3381.50.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:22:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I wonder if we could just make the workqueue code just run with preemption > disabled - that should also automatically protect against any CPU hotplug > events on the local CPU (and I think "local CPU" is all that the wq code > cares about, no?) __create_workqueue(), destroy_workqueue() and flush_workqueue() are all taking CPU hotplug lock currently. AFAICS they all can block and so disabling preemption wont work. What am I missing? -- Regards, vatsa