[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141016073048.GA19055@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:30:48 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
tianyu.lan@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/smp: Use die_complete completion when taking CPU down
* Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> index 8650cdb..4da0008 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> @@ -498,6 +498,7 @@ static int xen_cpu_disable(void)
> if (cpu == 0)
> return -EBUSY;
>
> + init_completion(&per_cpu(die_complete, smp_processor_id()));
> cpu_disable_common();
>
> load_cr3(swapper_pg_dir);
> @@ -510,6 +511,9 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> current->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
> }
> +
> + wait_for_completion_timeout(&per_cpu(die_complete, cpu), HZ);
> +
> xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
> xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
> xen_teardown_timer(cpu);
So why not put it into cpu_disable_common() and do the same
change for native_cpu_disable()?
Likewise, the waiting bit should be put into a common function as
well (newly introduced, if need to be), we don't want to expose
internal x86 core data structures to the Xen guest code.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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