On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 02:32:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So what is it that you really need to do here? > > In short, we don't want the cpufreq data to go away (see the 2 scenarios > above) while the scheduler is looking at it. The scheduler uses the > provided accessors (see patch 2/2) so we can put any protection > mechanism we want in them. A simple spinlock could do just as well > which should be good enough. rq->lock disables interrupts so on that something like kick_all_cpus_sync() will guarantee what you need -- wake_up_all_idle_cpus() will not. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
