[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150220201123.GD3603@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 21:11:23 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rafael David Tinoco <inaddy@...ntu.com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
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>,
Christopher Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: smp_call_function_single lockups
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that aspect: I think disabling
> > IRQs might be necessary with some APICs (if lower
> > levels don't disable IRQs), to make sure the 'local
> > APIC busy' bit isn't set:
>
> Right. But afaik not for the x2apic case, which this is.
> The x2apic doesn't even have a busy bit, and sending the
> ipi is a single write,
Ah, ok! Then the patch looks good to me.
( Originally we didn't wait for the ICR bit either, but
then it was added due to later erratas and was eventually
made an architectural requirement. )
> I agree that when doing other apic implementations, we
> may need to guarantee atomicity for things like "wait for
> apic idle, then send the ipi".
Yeah.
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