[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090217214518.GA13189@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:45:18 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove
single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())
On 02/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 08:28:10PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > So the question is: is there any arch which surely needs this barrier?
> >
> > IOW,
> > int COND;
> >
> > void smp_xxx_interrupt(regs)
> > {
> > BUG_ON(!COND);
> > }
> >
> > COND = 1;
> > mb();
> > smp_send_xxx(cpu);
> >
> > can we really hit the BUG_ON() above on some arch?
>
> If all of the above is executed by the same task, tripping the BUG_ON()
> means either a compiler or CPU bug.
I think you misunderstood...
smp_send_xxx() sends the ipi to another CPU, and smp_xxx_interrupt() is
the handler.
Oleg.
--
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