[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100926125945.GA2597@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:59:45 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: fix deadlock in __smp_call_function_single
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:42:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Maybe. Or maybe it papers over a scheduler bug by gratuitously adding
> > additional code which no present callsites actually need.
>
> Hm, indeed.
>
> We now have the scheduler bug fixed upstream. Do we really need this
> patch?
General consensus was that it is good if smp_call_function_single() and
__smp_call_function_single() would behave the same if remote cpu == current
cpu.
If you're not applying this patch then at least at a WARN_ON() which triggers
when remote cpu == current cpu. I don't want to debug something like this
again.
> > The patch didn't update the __smp_call_function_single() kerneldoc.
> > Compare it with smp_call_function_single() and note the subtle
> > difference between "a specific CPU" and the now incorrect "on another
> > CPU".
>
> In any case this feedback didnt get addressed AFAICS.
It did get addressed in an updated patch which is the one which you
applied: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/9/10/245
--
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