[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57039DC2.6090907@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:13:06 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian.siewior@...utronix.de>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rt@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PREEMPT-RT] [PATCH] s390/cpum_sf: Remove superfluous SMP
function call
On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
>> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measurement_alert(stru
>> static int cpumf_pmu_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>> unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
>> {
>> - unsigned int cpu = (long) hcpu;
>> int flags;
>>
>> /* Ignore the notification if no events are scheduled on the PMU.
>> @@ -1523,11 +1522,15 @@ static int cpumf_pmu_notifier(struct not
>> case CPU_ONLINE:
>> case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
>> flags = PMC_INIT;
>> - smp_call_function_single(cpu, setup_pmc_cpu, &flags, 1);
>> + local_irq_disable();
>> + setup_pmc_cpu(&flags);
>> + local_irq_enable();
>> break;
>
> ...but at least the CPU_DOWN_FAILED callback will not necessarily be called
> on the cpu that couldn't be brought offline.
I don't follow.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists