From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wli@holomorphy.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, manfred@colorfullife.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent sparc64 from invoking irq handlers on offline CPUs
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:16:30 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080902.171630.193505044.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080831173349.GA15393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:33:49 -0700
> Make sparc64 refrain from clearing a given to-be-offlined CPU's bit in the
> cpu_online_mask until it has processed pending irqs. This change
> prevents other CPUs from being blindsided by an apparently offline CPU
> nevertheless changing globally visible state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
I wonder what the 'call_lock' thing protects :-)
That lock is a cobweb from the sparc64 code before I switched it over
to use the generic smp_call_function() code in kernel/smp.c
So this lock doesn't protect anything any more.
kernel/smp.c has a call_function_lock, which isn't marked static
but isn't declared in any header file.
My instinct is that the intention is that I could use this lock
for the synchronization previously provided by sparc64's local
"call_lock", and it even seems the author of kernel/smp.c intended
this kind of usage.
Anyways, if this code is still using the worthless call_lock, it
isn't protecting against anything.
So I'd like to hold off on this patch until this locking issue is
resolved.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-03 0:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-31 17:33 Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-03 0:16 ` David Miller [this message]
2008-09-03 0:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-03 9:21 ` David Miller
2008-09-03 15:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-09 0:17 ` David Miller
2008-09-09 14:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-09 18:49 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-09 19:57 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080902.171630.193505044.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®