[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1338275765-3217-7-git-send-email-yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:16:01 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 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,
srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 06/10] x86: smp: remove call to ipi_call_lock()/ipi_call_unlock()
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>
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.
Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 9 ---------
arch/x86/xen/smp.c | 2 --
2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 433529e..bfbe30e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -253,22 +253,13 @@ notrace static void __cpuinit start_secondary(void *unused)
check_tsc_sync_target();
/*
- * We need to hold call_lock, so there is no inconsistency
- * between the time smp_call_function() determines number of
- * IPI recipients, and the time when the determination is made
- * for which cpus receive the IPI. Holding this
- * lock helps us to not include this cpu in a currently in progress
- * smp_call_function().
- *
* We need to hold vector_lock so there the set of online cpus
* does not change while we are assigning vectors to cpus. Holding
* this lock ensures we don't half assign or remove an irq from a cpu.
*/
- ipi_call_lock();
lock_vector_lock();
set_cpu_online(smp_processor_id(), true);
unlock_vector_lock();
- ipi_call_unlock();
per_cpu(cpu_state, smp_processor_id()) = CPU_ONLINE;
x86_platform.nmi_init();
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
index afb250d..f58dca7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
@@ -80,9 +80,7 @@ static void __cpuinit cpu_bringup(void)
notify_cpu_starting(cpu);
- ipi_call_lock();
set_cpu_online(cpu, true);
- ipi_call_unlock();
this_cpu_write(cpu_state, CPU_ONLINE);
--
1.7.5.4
--
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