[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080822093518.GK23334@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:35:18 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: latest -git: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/ipi.c:123	send_IPI_mask_bitmask+0xc3/0xe0()
> We still need the equivalent functionality, though.  The midlayer 
> (msr_on_cpu) may be pointless, but that doesn't change the fact that 
> putting this functionality in the lower layer (smp_call_function_single) 
> makes more sense.
Assuming you can actually have interrupts enabled at these point
and be otherwise ready to do call_function_simple (e.g. cpu hotplug
locking etc.) 
For a lot of MSR accesses in more complicated subsystems like cpufreq 
that requires complications.  I would think for many circumstances it's 
better to simply set affinity of the thread before at a higher level.
In hindsight I think it was my mistake to ever merge that.
I admit I never liked it, but just merged it because I wasn't able
to come up with a strong enough counter argument back then.
-Andi
--
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
 
