[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081031165334.GA10468@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:53:36 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"nickpiggin@...oo.com.au" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() placement
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 04:12:32AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >>
> >>> We didn't see the lockup in our tests but Xen folks reported similar failures
> >>> with their smp call function code.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ...really? I don't remember anything like that, but perhaps I'm
> >> forgetting something. In Xen the IPI is sent with a hypercall,
> >> which is definitely a solid enough barrier for these purposes.
> >>
> >
> > i think Suresh might be referring to some of the fragilities Xen had
> > with generic-ipi. But those AFAICT were due to the on-stack lifetime
> > bug that Nick fixed via the kmalloc? v2.6.26-ish issue.
>
> Right, that's all I could think of.
No. I am referring to Xen hypervisor code fix recently done by the Xen
team in the Intel.
http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/50170dc8649c
thanks,
suresh
--
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