[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190722181658.GA6698@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:16:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
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 Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/18/19 5:58 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > @@ -624,16 +622,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_each_cpu);
> > void on_each_cpu_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, smp_call_func_t func,
> > void *info, bool wait)
> > {
> > - int cpu = get_cpu();
> > + preempt_disable();
> >
> > - smp_call_function_many(mask, func, info, wait);
> > - if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask)) {
> > - unsigned long flags;
> > - local_irq_save(flags);
> > - func(info);
> > - local_irq_restore(flags);
> > - }
> > - put_cpu();
> > + __smp_call_function_many(mask, func, func, info, wait);
> > +
> > + preempt_enable();
> > }
>
> The get_cpu() was missing it too, but it would be nice to add some
> comments about why preempt needs to be off. I was also thinking it
> might make sense to do:
>
> cfd = get_cpu_var(cfd_data);
> __smp_call_function_many(cfd, ...);
> put_cpu_var(cfd_data);
>
> instead of the explicit preempt_enable/disable(), but I don't feel too
> strongly about it.
It is also required for cpu hotplug.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists