[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwWT--5mgKqryfFAbgaoEacsZn8dZ0POWH3xpdNgRMuRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:26:23 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rafael David Tinoco <inaddy@...ntu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Gema Gomez <gema.gomez-solano@...onical.com>,
chris.j.arges@...onical.com,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: smp_call_function_single lockups
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Rafael David Tinoco <inaddy@...ntu.com> wrote:
>
> Same environment as before: Nested KVM (2 vcpus) on top of Proliant
> DL380G8 with acpi_idle and no x2apic optout.
Btw, which apic model does that end up using? Does "no x2apic optout"
mean you're using the x2apic?
What does "dmesg | grep apic" report? Something like
Switched APIC routing to cluster x2apic.
or what?
Side note to the apic guys: I think the "single CPU" case ends up
being one of the most important ones, but the stupid APIC model
doesn't allow that, so sending an IPI to a single CPU ends up being
"send a mask with a single bit set", and then we have that horrible
"for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)" crap.
Would it make sense to perhaps add a "send_IPI_single()" function
call, and then for the APIC models that always are based on masks, use
a wrapper that just does that "cpumask_of(cpu)" thing..
Hmm?
Linus
--
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