[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901291249000.27527@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:50:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, npiggin@...e.de,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> >
> > But to be irq-safe, you now need to protect the _whole_ region against
> > interrupts, because otherwise an incoming interrupt will hit while the
> > CSD_FLAG_LOCK bit is set, perhaps _before_ the actual IPI has been sent,
> > and now nothing will ever clear it. So the interrupt handler that tries to
> > send an IPI will now spin forever.
>
> Again, this code is not allowed to run from an interrupt handler.
>
> >
> > So NAK on this patch. I think the approach is correct, but the
> > implementation is buggy.
My whole assumption of this is that smp_call_function_single can not be
called from an interrupt handler. If it can, then perhaps I just change
the spinlock to the cmpxchg code, and put a:
WARN_ON(cpu == smp_processor_id());
-- Steve
--
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