[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201028144453.GA18610@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:44:53 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Runge <dave@...epmap.de>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 03:12:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> static int blk_softirq_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - /*
> - * If a CPU goes away, splice its entries to the current CPU
> - * and trigger a run of the softirq
> - */
> - local_irq_disable();
> - list_splice_init(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu),
> - this_cpu_ptr(&blk_cpu_done));
> - raise_softirq_irqoff(BLOCK_SOFTIRQ);
> - local_irq_enable();
> -
> + blk_complete_reqs(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, cpu));
> return 0;
How can this be preempted? Can't we keep using this_cpu_ptr here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists