[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:17:24 -0500
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: mingo@...nel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
bobby.prani@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] x86: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification
code
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> }
> @@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
> }
>
> - cpu_die_common(cpu);
> + (void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
> + /* FIXME: Are the below calls really safe in case of timeout? */
Not for HVM guests (PV guests will only reach this point after target
cpu has been marked as down by the hypervisor).
We need at least to have a message similar to what native_cpu_die()
prints on cpu_wait_death() failure. And I think we should not call the
two routines below (three, actually --- there is also
xen_teardown_timer() below, which is not part of the diff).
-boris
>
> xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
> xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
--
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