[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305795301.2466.7200.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:55:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: yong.zhang0@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, lizf@...fujitsu.com, miaox@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rcu: don't bind offline cpu
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 10:34 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 15:06 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >
> > The right way is, explicit two phase cpu bindings (1) bind boot
> > (or any other online) cpu at CPU_UP_PREPARE (2) bind correct
> > target cpu at CPU_ONLINE. This patch does it.
>
> I'm not sure that is in-fact correct. From what I understood, RCU could
> have need of this thread before the ONLINE callback and expects it to be
> affine at that time.
Right, so we're waking that thread from the timer tick, so we must have
that thread set-up and ready _before_ we enable interrupts for the first
time. CPU_ONLINE is _WAAAAAY_ too late for that.
> What was wrong with delaying the wakeup to STARTING?
Hrmm right, so I thought STARTING was right after we marked the cpu
online, but its right before. Bummer.
Also Paul:
rcu_cpu_kthread()
rcu_process_callbacks()
__rcu_process_callbacks()
rcu_do_batch()
invoke_rcu_cpu_kthread()
Why wake the thread again if its already running?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists