[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1296580107.13713.1.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:08:27 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] oprofile: add SMP barriers for hrtimer hotplug code
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 08:03 +0000, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hello Lei Ming,
> 2011/2/1 Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon@....com]
> >> diff --git a/drivers/oprofile/timer_int.c
> >> b/drivers/oprofile/timer_int.c
> >> index 0107251..a3a94ea 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/oprofile/timer_int.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/oprofile/timer_int.c
> >> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ static int oprofile_hrtimer_start(void)
> >> {
> >> get_online_cpus();
> >> ctr_running = 1;
> >> + smp_mb();
> >> on_each_cpu(__oprofile_hrtimer_start, NULL, 1);
>
> Just a little question:
>
> Before calling __oprofile_hrtimer_start in other CPUs,
> there have been some smp_mb executed already, such as called by
> smp_call_function_many in current CPU, and called by
> generic_smp_call_function_interrupt in the func-calling CPU,
> so are these smp_mb enough for correct order of access
> for 'ctr_running' ?
I didn't dive into the guts of the cross-calling implementation, but it
appears that you're correct. There's also the csd_{un}lock functions
which have smp_mb() in them too, so I think we have plenty of barrier
goodness as it is.
I'll trash the patch.
Cheers,
Will
--
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