On 07/31/2012 11:57 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 07/26/2012 02:50 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> The cpu hotplug notifier gets called in both atomic and non-atomic
>>> contexts, it is not always safe to lock a mutex. Filter out all events
>>> except the six necessary ones, which are all sleepable, before taking
>>> the mutex.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccr...@android.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c b/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c
>>> index 2c9bf26..c24dda0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c
>>> @@ -678,6 +678,18 @@ static int cpuidle_coupled_cpu_notify(struct
>>> notifier_block *nb,
>>> int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
>>> struct cpuidle_device *dev;
>>>
>>> + switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
>>> + case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
>>> + case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
>>> + case CPU_ONLINE:
>>> + case CPU_DEAD:
>>> + case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
>>> + case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + return NOTIFY_OK;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> Instead, wouldn't it be better to have case statements for the
>> 2 cases that imply atomic context and return immediately?
>>
>> Something like:
>> switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
>> case CPU_STARTING:
>> case CPU_DYING:
>> return NOTIFY_OK;
>> }
>
> No, because then it would need updating whenever a new notification
> event was added.
>
Hmm.. Fair enough.
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
