| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Now that everyone has been able to test the async code (and it's being used
in the Moblin betas by default), we can enable it by default.
The various fixes needed have gone into 2.6.29 already.
[With an important bugfix from Stefan Richter]
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
|
list.h provides a dedicated primitive for
"list_del followed by list_add_tail"... list_move_tail.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
|
|
Rename the async_*_special() functions to async_*_domain(), which
describes the purpose of these functions much better.
[Broke up long lines to silence checkpatch]
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
|
Add some kerneldoc to the async interface.
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
|
If we fail to create the manager thread, fall back to non-fastboot.
If we fail to create an async thread, try again after waiting for
a bit.
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
|
async_schedule() should pass in async_running as the running
list, and run_one_entry() should put the entry to be run on
the provided running list instead of always on the generic one.
Reported-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
|
alpha:
kernel/async.c: In function 'run_one_entry':
kernel/async.c:141: warning: format '%lli' expects type 'long long int', but argument 2 has type 'async_cookie_t'
kernel/async.c:149: warning: format '%lli' expects type 'long long int', but argument 2 has type 'async_cookie_t'
kernel/async.c:149: warning: format '%lld' expects type 'long long int', but argument 4 has type 's64'
kernel/async.c: In function 'async_synchronize_cookie_special':
kernel/async.c:250: warning: format '%lli' expects type 'long long int', but argument 3 has type 's64'
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
At 37000 feet somewhere near Greenland I woke up from a half-sleep with the
realisation that __lowest_in_progress() is buggy. After landing I checked
and there were indeed 2 problems with it; this patch fixes both:
* The order of the list checks was wrong
* The locking was not correct.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
... and have it default off.
This does allow people to work with it for testing.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
|
turns out that there are real problems with allowing async
tasks that are scheduled from async tasks to run after
the async_synchronize_full() returns.
This patch makes the _full more strict and a complete
synchronization. Later I might need to add back a lighter
form of synchronization for other uses.. but not right now.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
while tracking the asynchronous calls during boot using the initcall_debug
convention is useful, doing it once the kernel is done is actually
bad now that we use asynchronous operations post boot as well...
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
|
Right now, most of the kernel boot is strictly synchronous, such that
various hardware delays are done sequentially.
In order to make the kernel boot faster, this patch introduces
infrastructure to allow doing some of the initialization steps
asynchronously, which will hide significant portions of the hardware delays
in practice.
In order to not change device order and other similar observables, this
patch does NOT do full parallel initialization.
Rather, it operates more in the way an out of order CPU does; the work may
be done out of order and asynchronous, but the observable effects
(instruction retiring for the CPU) are still done in the original sequence.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
|
