[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A615FC376@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:10:11 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: Boris Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/mce/therm_throt: Fix the access of uninitialized
therm_work
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 6:01 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com>;
> tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; hpa@...or.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/mce/therm_throt: Fix the access of uninitialized
> therm_work
>
> On January 6, 2020 10:22:06 AM GMT+01:00, "Liu, Chuansheng"
> <chuansheng.liu@...el.com> wrote:
> >I traced there is about 2s gap between unmask interrupt and workqueue
> >Initialization.
>
> And that is a problem because?
>
> You setup workqueue etc and *then* unmask the irq.
>
Some previous experience shows:
If there is critical thermal alert, we still can take action in kernel side in this
2s, even though the workqueue is not ready, but interrupt handler can work
well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists