[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080826.004607.253712060.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mingo@...e.hu
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Alan.Brunelle@...com,
travis@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c -
bisected
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:22:20 +0200
> And i guess the next generation of 4K CPUs support should just get away
> from cpumask_t-on-kernel-stack model altogether, as the current model is
> not maintainable. We tried the on-kernel-stack variant, and it really
> does not work reliably. We can fix this in v2.6.28.
I recenetly did some work on sparc64 to use cpumask pointers
as much as possible.
The only case that didn't work was due to a limitation in
arch interfaces for the new generic smp_call_function() code.
It passes a cpumask_t instead of a pointer to one via
arch_send_call_function_ipi().
But other than that, the whole sparc64 SMP stuff uses cpumask_t
pointers only.
What it comes down to is that you have to do the "self cpu"
and other tests in the cross-call dispatch routines themselves,
instead of at the top-level working on cpumask_t objects.
Otherwise you have to modify cpumask_t objects and thus pluck
them onto the stack where they take up silly amounts of space.
--
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