From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756506Ab2IQVWJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:22:09 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:50386 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753878Ab2IQVWF (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:22:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:22:02 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tejun Heo Cc: 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't migrate the kworker to another CPU Message-ID: <20120917212202.GB6541@liondog.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Tejun Heo , 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 References: <20120917201721.GJ18677@google.com> <20120917203654.GA6541@liondog.tnic> <20120917205355.GK18677@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120917205355.GK18677@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:53:55PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Yes indeed. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.