[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1106231131300.11814@ionos>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
hpa@...or.com, trenn@...ell.com, prarit@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
youquan.song@...el.com, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] x86, mtrr: lock stop machine during MTRR rendezvous
sequence
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:20 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > + /*
> > + * If we are not yet online, then there can be no stop_machine() in
> > + * parallel. Stop machine ensures this by using get_online_cpus().
> > + *
> > + * If we are online, then we need to prevent a stop_machine() happening
> > + * in parallel by taking the stop cpus mutex.
> > + */
> > + if (cpu_online(raw_smp_processor_id()))
> > + mutex_lock(&stop_cpus_mutex);
> > +#endif
>
> This reads like an optimization, is it really worth-while to not take
> the mutex in the rare offline case?
You cannot block on a mutex when you are not online, in fact you
cannot block on it when not active, so the check is wrong anyway.
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