From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757761Ab0IZNAB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:00:01 -0400
Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.17.161]:36785 "EHLO
	mtagate1.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757576Ab0IZNAA (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:00:00 -0400
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:59:45 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
        Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: fix deadlock in __smp_call_function_single
Message-ID: <20100926125945.GA2597@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
References: <20100909135050.GB2228@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
 <1284116817.402.33.camel@laptop>
 <20100910172805.a4fe5c7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <20100926084233.GA28809@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100926084233.GA28809@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:42:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Maybe.  Or maybe it papers over a scheduler bug by gratuitously adding 
> > additional code which no present callsites actually need.
> 
> Hm, indeed.
> 
> We now have the scheduler bug fixed upstream. Do we really need this 
> patch?

General consensus was that it is good if smp_call_function_single() and
__smp_call_function_single() would behave the same if remote cpu == current
cpu.

If you're not applying this patch then at least at a WARN_ON() which triggers
when remote cpu == current cpu. I don't want to debug something like this
again.
 
> > The patch didn't update the __smp_call_function_single() kerneldoc. 
> > Compare it with smp_call_function_single() and note the subtle 
> > difference between "a specific CPU" and the now incorrect "on another 
> > CPU".
> 
> In any case this feedback didnt get addressed AFAICS.

It did get addressed in an updated patch which is the one which you
applied: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/9/10/245