From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754719Ab0IQWMx (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:12:53 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:52345 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753875Ab0IQWMw (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:12:52 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,384,1280732400"; d="scan'208";a="555621810" Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: fix deadlock in __smp_call_function_single From: Suresh Siddha Reply-To: Suresh Siddha To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: <20100914111954.GB2201@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20100909135050.GB2228@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1284116817.402.33.camel@laptop> <20100910172805.a4fe5c7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1284196838.2251.12.camel@laptop> <1284400941.2684.19.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com> <1284451427.2275.462.camel@laptop> <20100914111954.GB2201@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Corp Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:12:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1284761553.2676.21.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 04:19 -0700, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > So what patches are we going to merge? > > > > I share Heiko's opinion on that its somewhat surprising to have > > __smp_call_function_single() differ in this detail from > > smp_call_function_single() and think that merging his patch would be > > good in that respect. But Andrew seemed to have reservations. > > > > We can also merge either my or Suresh's patch (which I think makes > > sense, but is kinda subtle) to avoid the needless self kick. Peter, Can you please merge my patch instead of yours, as mine is more appropriate here. And also I would like Heiko's patch also to be merged as that brings smp_call_function_single() and __smp_call_function_single() to similar behavior. thanks, suresh > > I would prefer to see your's or Suresh's scheduler patch to be merged to > fix the bug. > My patch could be merged for 2.6.37 or be dropped in favour of a WARN_ON > in __smp_call_function_single() if remote cpu == current cpu. > However I think it would be better if smp_call_function_single() and > __smp_call_function_single() wouldn't differ here.