[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56CF248A.3070805@synopsys.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:28:02 +0530
From: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>,
arcml <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC
On Thursday 25 February 2016 08:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 07:53:39PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> But then ARM CONFIG_SMP on UP hardware will still crap out because there
>> is no way to send IPI to self. Same as the bug in above discussion. I'm
>> surprised they way ARM guys worked around it.
>
> We haven't worked around it - the code which provoked the oops that was
> seen (in the cpufreq code) was changed not to call it, which has the
> effect of making the problem "go away", at least for now.
>
> We still have the problem that if it does get called on UP, it'll blow
> up - and I don't see any point in complicating the code for something
> that never happens right now.
Right so my statement "workaround" was technically incorrect. But like you say,
it's a ticking bomb which will certainly go off on your SMP on UP systems the
moment someone adds irq_work_queue_on() in some obscure corner of generic code.
And I think this merits fixing in generic code !
-Vineet
Powered by blists - more mailing lists