[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603163745.GC30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 18:37:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] irq_work: Implement remote queueing
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:29:07AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > +bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
> > +{
> > + /* All work should have been flushed before going offline */
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(cpu));
> > +
> > + /* Arch remote IPI send/receive backend aren't NMI safe */
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi());
> > +
> > + /* Only queue if not already pending */
> > + if (!irq_work_claim(work))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (llist_add(&work->llnode, &per_cpu(raised_list, cpu)))
> > + native_send_call_func_single_ipi(cpu);
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue_on);
> > +
>
> I am curious, this should only compile on x86, right ?
Oh, you tease, you forgot to say why you think this.
Are you referring to the in_nmi() usage? that's from
include/linux/hardirq.h, hardly x86 specific.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists