Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency

[Ingo Molnar]

* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> a) cpufreq maintain's it's own cpumask in the variable 
> policy->affected_cpus and says : If a frequency change is issued to 
> any one of the cpu's in the affected_cpus mask, you change frequency 
> on all cpus in the mask. So this needs to be consistent with 
> cpu_online map and hence cpu hotplug aware. Furthermore, we don't want 
> cpus in this mask to go down when we are trying to change frequencies 
> on them. The function which drives the frequency change in 
> cpufreq-core is cpufreq_driver_target and it needs cpu-hotplug 
> protection.

couldnt this complexity be radically simplified by having new kernel 
infrastructure that does something like:

  " 'gather' all CPUs mentioned in <mask> via scheduling a separate 
    helper-kthread on every CPU that <mask> specifies, disable all
   interrupts, and execute function <fn> once all CPUs have been 
   'gathered' - and release all CPUs once <fn> has executed on each of
   them."

?

This would be done totally serialized and while holding the hotplug 
lock, so no CPU could go away or arrive while this operation is going 
on.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/