[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C93C241E-E078-4825-8C59-39C84D30F9CB@vmware.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:34:22 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] smp: Run functions concurrently in
smp_call_function_many()
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:58:29PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Call a function on all processors. May be used during early boot while
>> + * early_boot_irqs_disabled is set.
>> + */
>> +static inline void on_each_cpu(smp_call_func_t func, void *info, int wait)
>> +{
>> + on_each_cpu_mask(cpu_online_mask, func, info, wait);
>> +}
>
> I'm thinking that one if buggy, nothing protects online mask here.
on_each_cpu_mask() calls __on_each_cpu_mask() which would disable preemption.
The mask might change, but anyhow __smp_call_function_many() would “and” it,
after disabling preemption, with (the potentially updated) cpu_online_mask.
What is your concern?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists