[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151008145059.GA17916@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:50:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] (Was: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Start stopper early)
On 10/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So Heiko reported some 'interesting' fail where stop_two_cpus() got
> stuck in multi_cpu_stop() with one cpu waiting for another that never
> happens.
>
> It _looks_ like the 'other' cpu isn't running and the current best
> theory is that we race on cpu-up and get the stop_two_cpus() call in
> before the stopper task is running.
How about this series? Slightly tested.
Note:
- To me this also looks like a preparation for lg lock removal, no
matter how exactly we will do this.
- We can do more cleanups on top of this. Say remove preempt_disable
in stop_two_cpus().
Oleg.
include/linux/stop_machine.h | 1
kernel/cpu.c | 2 -
kernel/stop_machine.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
--
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