[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:58:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Dave Kleikamp <dkleikamp@...il.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org, paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: idle issues running sembench on 128 cpus
On Thu, 5 May 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > No, it does not even need refcounting. We can access it outside of the
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > > lock as this is atomic context called on the cpu which is about to go
> > > idle and therefor the device cannot go away. Easy and straightforward
> > > fix.
> >
> > Ok. Patch appended. Looks good?
>
> Mostly. See below.
>
> > BTW why must the lock be irqsave?
>
> Good question. Probably safety frist paranoia :)
>
> Indeed that code should only be called from irq disabled regions, so
> we could avoid the irqsave there. Otherwise that needs to be irqsave
> for obvious reasons.
Just looked through all the call sites. Both intel_idle and
processor_idle notify ENTER with interrups disabled, but EXIT with
interrupts enabled. So when we want to remove irqsave from the
spinlock that needs to be fixed as well.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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