[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131206105639.GA20448@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:56:39 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: smp_call_function_single with wait=0 considered harmful
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:43:03PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> smp_call_function_single() sets "csd = &__get_cpu_var(csd_data)", so
> it's not using a struct on the stack. We'll queue up "func" and
> likely will return before it is executed, but that should be fine
> because nobody will overwrite csd_data until it *is* executed and
> csd_unlock() has been called.
You're right, I missed the usage of the per-cpu data later in the
function.
--
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