[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080507204251.GO16217@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 22:42:52 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Mon, May 05 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> OK. The below still permits parallel smp_call_function()
> and smp_call_function_mask() as well as permitting parallel
> smp_call_function_single(). It prohibits the irq-disabled case.
>
> Thoughts?
Sorry for the delayed response here. The below looks pretty good to me,
though it'll require a few modifications to fixup smp_call_function()
from irq disabled context.
But that's doable, though I have to do a grep over the kernel to check
everything (I remember CPU send_stop being one such path). Not a huge
fan of such an interface, but hey...
Is everyone OK with going this route, initially at least? It's the
lesser of all evils, I think.
> diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig
> index a5a0184..5ae9360 100644
> --- a/arch/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/Kconfig
> @@ -38,4 +38,4 @@ config HAVE_KRETPROBES
> def_bool n
>
> config USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS
> - def_bool n
> + def_bool y
This part puzzled me, why? We default to 'n' and let converted archs
opt-in, so I don't get this part of your patch...
--
Jens Axboe
--
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