[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A056F47@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:11:32 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix the race between smp_call_function and CPU booting
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:43 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Yanmin Zhang; tglx@...utronix.de
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix the race between smp_call_function and CPU booting
>
> On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 06:27 +0000, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > On the unplug case, after set the CPU to !active, we do not need IPI
> > handling for the corresponding CPU before it is set to offline. I did
> > not find any impact that limiting the smp_call_function just after CPU
> > is active.
>
> Have a look at Alpha, it's flush_tlb_mm() can use smp_call_function(), in
> the !active,online case you very much still need to tlb flush that cpu.
>
> The fact that it works on a limited use case on x86 doesn't say anything much
> at all.
Thanks your pointing out, do you have any other perfect solution for this issue?
As for the stress test result, advancing the setting active before setting online broken
something either.
--
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