[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080502130922.GC15522@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:09:22 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Keith Owens <kaos@....com.au>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:50:44PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" (on Fri, 2 May 2008 05:29:55 -0700) wrote:
> >OK -- for some reason, I was thinking that it was illegal to
> >invoke smp_call_function() with irqs disabled...
> >
> >Ah, I see it -- smp_call_function_mask() says:
> >
> > * You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a
> > * hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler.
> >
> >So we have no problem with smp_call_function, then.
> >
> >OK, so smp_call_function() -can- be invoked with irqs disabled?
> >Hmmm... I will give this some thought.
>
> Doing any smp_call_function with interrupts disabled is a potential
> deadlock. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/5/2/116.
OK, cool, thank you for the confirmation!
Therefore, when you call smp_call_function(), you may get calls from
other CPUs showing up, and therefore my polling approach does not
introduce any new strands of spaghetti. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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