[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTik-4S_=L5FLhMfommf5Umd0xO+h4QP9uoxwrgFE@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:05:36 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog
and touch_softlockup_watchdog
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
>> Why not use __raw_get_cpu_var() instead?
>> You know adding preempt protection in touch_softlockup_watchdog()
>> just suppress the warning. Am I missing something?
>>
>
> Sorry, my low level understanding of the __raw_get_cpu_var isn't very strong.
> I assume it uses current_thread_info()->cpu in some cases (right?) or
> percpu_from_op.
The difference is __raw_get_cpu_var() is using raw_smp_processor_id().
>
>
> Should it be
> acpi_os_stall
> preepmt_disable
> touch_nmi_watchdog
> touch_softlockup_watchdog
> preempt_enable
Actually I don't think this is helpful for the whole function. Because
if acpi_os_stall()
migrate(I don't know if it could) to another CPU just before
preepmt_disable(), we'll
be on the wrong way. Adding preempt protection is just smoothing the warning.
So I prefer using __raw_get_cpu_var() as what we have been done before.
Thanks,
Yong
--
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