[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4630a9fc-0980-485f-9b70-01558ab418db@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 12:54:32 -0700
From: Vijay Balakrishna <vijayb@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Robert Richter
<rric@...nel.org>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tyler Hicks <code@...icks.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drivers/edac: Add L1 and L2 error detection for A72
On 5/20/2025 9:09 AM, Vijay Balakrishna wrote:
> On 5/19/2025 1:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> I'd venture a guess you need to protect here against CPU hotplug...
>>
>>> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_online_mask, &compat_mask) {
>>> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, read_errors, &merrsr, true);
>>> + report_errors(edac_ctl, cpu, &merrsr);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>
> Hi Boris,
>
> I appreciate you highlighting the CPU hotplug issue. Upon further review
> of surrounding code, I realized we must ensure that the data passed to
> read_errors() is per-CPU.
Actually, per-CPU data not needed as we are passing true -- wait until
function has completed on other CPUs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists