[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBTrqOk_ctBKmT0c=teZ8oG3c7Ai6-BmZwOj+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:03:54 +0800
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....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
Hi,
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' ?
>> put_online_cpus();
>> return 0;
thanks,
--
Lei Ming
--
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