[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45E73825.30800@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:31:33 -0800
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Daniel Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in on_each_cpu?
Andrew Morton wrote:
> The handler for smp_call_function() is called with local interrupts
> disabled (from the IPI handler).
>
> So to provide a consistent call environment for that handler, on_each_cpu()
> will also disable local interrupts when making the direct call on this CPU.
>
> Similarly the !CONFIG_SMP version of on_each_cpu() disables local
> interrupts when running the caller's function.
>
Yes, that is sensible. Something akin to on_each_cpu(synchronize_tscs)
would certainly not like interrupts coming in. Similarly, acpi_nmi
disable and probably rcu barriers as well. The irq disable here can
very validly be used as a barrier, but trying to ensure preserved shared
state with irq handlers over the call is a bug.
If one had all the spare time in the world, a new "sense" of irq disable
that communicated this fact would be nice from a static or dynamic
checking perspective.
Zach
------
sutra I.1 - atha linushasaanam
-
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