[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140228122624.GF9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:26:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: 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>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: smp_call_function_single with wait=0 considered harmful
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:46:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> While doing my recent work on the generic smp function calls I noticed
> that smp_call_function_single without the wait flag can't work, as
> it allocates struct call_single_data on stack, and without the wait
> flag will happily return before the IPI has been executed.
It doesn't actually; it uses a per-cpu one in the !wait case.
The subsequent csd_lock() ensures it will wait for any prior user to
complete, so only if you're doing multiple smp_call_function_single()
invocations back-to-back will they queue up.
> This affects the following callers:
<snip>
> kernel/stop_machine.c:stop_two_cpus()
That site should work with .wait=1 just fine, but given the above, the
.wait=0 doesn't appear problematic at all.
--
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