[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F328133C0@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:50:21 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Kill CPU_POST_DEAD
>> So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
>> shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
>
> Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's hotplug
> script seems to work fine.
>
> Tony, any objections?
what was this comment referring to:
/* intentionally ignoring frozen here */
After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we are
no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even if the
CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit was set - with the new placement we will skip rediscovery.
So we were working around some interaction between cpu hotplug and frozen.
Do we no longer need to do that?
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists