From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261336AbVFBUVc (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:21:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261329AbVFBUSB (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:18:01 -0400 Received: from fsmlabs.com ([168.103.115.128]:58803 "EHLO fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261326AbVFBUQd (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:16:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:19:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Ashok Raj cc: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org, Rusty Russell , Srivattsa Vaddagiri Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] x86_64: CPU hotplug support. In-Reply-To: <20050602130111.816070000@araj-em64t> Message-ID: References: <20050602125754.993470000@araj-em64t> <20050602130111.816070000@araj-em64t> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Ashok Raj wrote: > @@ -445,8 +477,10 @@ void __cpuinit start_secondary(void) > /* > * Allow the master to continue. > */ > + lock_ipi_call_lock(); > cpu_set(smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_map); > mb(); > + unlock_ipi_call_lock(); What's that? Is this another smp_call_function race workaround? I thought there was an additional patch to avoid the broadcast. > +#include > +/* We don't actually take CPU down, just spin without interrupts. */ > +static inline void play_dead(void) > +{ > + idle_task_exit(); > + mb(); > + /* Ack it */ > + __get_cpu_var(cpu_state) = CPU_DEAD; > + > + local_irq_disable(); > + while (1) > + safe_halt(); > +} Might as well drop the local_irq_disable since safe_halt enables interrupts. Zwane