[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1220238880.13010.4.camel@pasglop>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:14:40 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tnt@...tNt.com,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
manfred@...orfullife.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent powerpc from invoking irq handlers on offline
CPUs
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 19:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:34:44AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 10:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Make powerpc refrain from clearing a given to-be-offlined CPU's bit in the
> > > cpu_online_mask until it has processed pending irqs. This change
> > > prevents other CPUs from being blindsided by an apparently offline CPU
> > > nevertheless changing globally visible state.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > Sounds reasonable... the only possible worry here is if somebody tries
> > an IPI ... The IPI code will and the target CPU mask with the online
> > map, so it may try to send to the to-be-offlined CPU and timeout, no ?
>
> OK. Do we need separate IPI and online masks?
Shouldn't we already have routed all interrupts to other CPUs anyway ?
IE. The affinity of all interrupts should have been updated. So the
only thing we're going to get here are possibly IPIs and decrementer,
I don't see it being a big deal making sure we test we are online when
receiving it.
Ben.
--
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