Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759069AbWK3Ida (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:33:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759135AbWK3Id3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:33:29 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:24551 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759069AbWK3Id3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:33:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:31:44 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gautham R Shenoy Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, davej@redhat.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency Message-ID: <20061130083144.GC29609@elte.hu> References: <20061129152404.GA7082@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061129152404.GA7082@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 636 Lines: 20 * Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > So do we > - Rethink the strategy of per-subsystem hotcpu-locks ? > > OR > > - Think of a way to straighten out the super-convoluted cpufreq code ? i'm still wondering what the conceptual source of this fundamental locking complexity in cpufreq (and hotplug) is - it is not intuitive to me at all. Could you try to explain that? Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/