[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140523151252.GE30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:12:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
riel@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mgalbraith@...e.de, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] CPU hotplug, stop-machine: Plug race-window that
leads to "IPI-to-offline-CPU"
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> + * During CPU offline, we don't want the other CPUs to send
> >> + * IPIs to the active_cpu (the outgoing CPU) *after* it has
> >> + * disabled interrupts (because, then it will notice the IPIs
> >> + * only after it has gone offline). We can prevent this by
> >> + * making the other CPUs disable their interrupts first - that
> >> + * way, they will run the stop-machine code with interrupts
> >> + * disabled, and hence won't send IPIs after that point.
That's complete nonsense, you can send IPIs all you want with interrupts
disabled.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists