[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150217130249.GK26177@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:02:49 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 3.14.23-rt20 - x86, UV: raw_spinlock conversion
* Mike Galbraith | 2014-11-02 08:31:37 [+0100]:
>Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right?
I can take this as is if you want.
>--- a/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_time.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_time.c
>@@ -300,13 +300,18 @@ static int uv_rtc_unset_timer(int cpu, i
> static cycle_t uv_read_rtc(struct clocksource *cs)
> {
> unsigned long offset;
>+ cycle_t cycles;
>
>+ migrate_disable();
> if (uv_get_min_hub_revision_id() == 1)
> offset = 0;
> else
> offset = (uv_blade_processor_id() * L1_CACHE_BYTES) % PAGE_SIZE;
>
>- return (cycle_t)uv_read_local_mmr(UVH_RTC | offset);
>+ cycles = (cycle_t)uv_read_local_mmr(UVH_RTC | offset);
>+ migrate_enable();
>+
>+ return cycles;
> }
but do you really want a migrate_disable() in here? The only problem I
can imagine is that you switch CPUs between uv_blade_processor_id()
and the actual read. I recommend preempt_disable() and sending this
upstream as well since it is not limited to -RT.
Sebastian
--
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