[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150419180140.GA8934@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:01:40 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: qemu:arm test failure due to commit 8053871d0f7f (smp: Fix
smp_call_function_single_async() locking)
* Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > I _think_ most such callers calling an SMP function call for
> > offline or out of range CPUs are at minimum racy.
>
> Not really; at least the online cpu part is an absolutely normal use
> case for qemu-arm.
The problem is that an IPI is attempted to be sent to a non-existent
CPU AFAICS, right?
> Sure, you can argue that "this isn't the real system", and that
> qemu-arm should be "fixed", but there are reasons - the emulation is
> (much) slower if the number of CPUs is set to 4, and not everyone
> who wants to use qemu has a system with as many CPUs as the emulated
> system would normally have.
That's all fine and good, but why is an IPI sent to a non-existent
CPU? It's not like we don't know which CPU is up and down.
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