[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150217103946.GD21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:39:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/35] clockevents: Fix cpu down race for hrtimer based
broadcasting
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:33:45AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 05:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> >> @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int
> >> __cpu_die(cpu);
> >>
> >> /* CPU is completely dead: tell everyone. Too late to complain. */
> >>- tick_cleanup_dead_cpu(cpu);
> >>+ tick_takeover(cpu);
>
> Why is tick_handover() called after __cpu_die()?
See: [PATCH 11/35] clockevents: Cleanup dead cpu explicitely
it used to be a CPU_DEAD notifier.
But, I think, the actual reason would be that you cannot be sure its not
still ticking until its actually proper dead and buried, so trying to
take over a tick from a cpu that's still ticking is... well, suspect.
> And the function tick_takeover()
> is not introduced until the next patch. tick_broadcast_takeover_bc() is the
> function used instead in this patch.
Indeed so; let me correct that for bisection's sake.
--
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