[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48CB5F56.5050001@qumranet.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:36:06 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Move the CPU_DYING notifiers
Manfred Spraul wrote:
> When a cpu is taken offline, the CPU_DYING notifiers are called on the
> dying cpu. According to <linux/notifiers.h>, the cpu should be "not
> running any task, not handling interrupts, soon dead".
>
> For the current implementation, this is not true:
> - __cpu_disable can fail. If it fails, then the cpu will remain alive
> and happy.
> - At least on x86, __cpu_disable() briefly enables the local interrupts
> to handle any outstanding interrupts.
>
> What about moving CPU_DYING down a few lines, behind the __cpu_disable()
> line?
> There are only two CPU_DYING handlers in the kernel right now: one in
> kvm, one in the scheduler. Both should work with the patch applied
> [and: I'm not sure if either one handles a failing __cpu_disable()]
>
> The patch survives simple offlining a cpu. kvm untested due to lack
> of a test setup.
>
>
kvm should work with this patch.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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