[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100323153359.GM2517@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:33:59 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp_call_function_many SMP race
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:26:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 22:15 +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > It turns out commit c0f68c2fab4898bcc4671a8fb941f428856b4ad5 (generic-ipi:
> > cleanup for generic_smp_call_function_interrupt()) is at fault. It removes
> > locking from smp_call_function_many and in doing so creates a rather
> > complicated race.
>
> A rather simple question since my brain isn't quite ready processing the
> content here..
>
> Isn't reverting that one patch a simpler solution than adding all that
> extra logic? If not, then the above statement seems false and we had a
> bug even with that preempt_enable/disable() pair.
>
> Just wondering.. :-)
If I understand correctly, if you want to fix it by reverting patches,
you have to revert back to simple locking (up to and including
54fdade1c3332391948ec43530c02c4794a38172). And I believe that the poor
performance of simple locking was whole reason for the series of patches.
Thanx, Paul
--
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