[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FCB4B9E.3090508@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:03:50 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Bob Liu <lliubbo@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/27] smpboot: Provide a generic method to boot secondary
processors
On 06/03/2012 02:23 PM, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:39:27PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> +void __cpuinit smpboot_start_secondary(void *arg)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * SMP booting is extremely fragile in some architectures. So run
>> + * the cpu initialization code first before anything else.
>> + */
>> + __cpu_pre_starting(arg);
>> +
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> +
>> + /* Invoke the CPU_STARTING notifier callbacks */
>> + notify_cpu_starting(cpu);
>> +
>> + __cpu_pre_online(arg);
>> +
>> + /* Set the CPU in the cpu_online_mask */
>> + set_cpu_online(cpu, true);
>> +
>> + __cpu_post_online(arg);
>> +
>
> Seems it worth to catch incorrect irq state here:
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
>
That's a good point! But unfortunately we can't do that just yet.
Because, some architectures have explicit comments that say that
irqs must be enabled at a certain point in time, or have something
special than just a local_irq_enable(), and hence fall under the
__cpu_post_online() function when converted to this model.
Examples: ARM (patch 26) and ia64 (patch 15)
Unless the maintainers give a go-ahead to change them, I don't
think it would be safe.. (I have added the Notes section to each
patch to get the attention of the maintainers to such issues).
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
>
>> + /* Enable local interrupts now */
>> + local_irq_enable();
>> +
>> + wmb();
>> + cpu_idle();
>> +
>> + /* We should never reach here! */
>> + BUG();
>> +}
--
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