[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120529.043630.590431449662750806.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 04:36:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: yong.zhang0@...il.com
Cc: srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, sshtylyov@...sta.com, david.daney@...ium.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [UPDATED] [RFC PATCH 08/10] SPARC: smp: remove call to
ipi_call_lock_irq()/ipi_call_unlock_irq()
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:27:33 +0800
> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:56:08 +0800
> Subject: [UPDATED] [RFC PATCH 8/10] SPARC: smp: remove call to
> ipi_call_lock_irq()/ipi_call_unlock_irq()
>
> 1) call_function.lock used in smp_call_function_many() is just to protect
> call_function.queue and &data->refs, cpu_online_mask is outside of the
> lock. And it's not necessary to protect cpu_online_mask,
> because data->cpumask is pre-calculate and even if a cpu is brougt up
> when calling arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(), it's harmless because
> validation test in generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() will take care
> of it.
>
> 2) For cpu down issue, stop_machine() will guarantee that no concurrent
> smp_call_fuction() is processing.
>
> And also delay irq enable to after set_cpu_online().
>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
--
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