From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Brodkin Subject: Re: Do we need to disable preemption in flush_tlb_range()? Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 19:15:11 +0000 Message-ID: <1521054910.11552.44.camel@synopsys.com> References: <1519917189.13866.6.camel@synopsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1519917189.13866.6.camel@synopsys.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <30A2D9E66292534496C2D08722D7A51C@internal.synopsys.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vineet Gupta Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org UGluZyENCg0KT24gVGh1LCAyMDE4LTAzLTAxIGF0IDE4OjEzICswMzAwLCBBbGV4ZXkgQnJvZGtp biB3cm90ZToNCj4gSGkgVmluZWV0LA0KPiANCj4gSnVzdCBub3RpY2VkIHRoYXQgaW4gY29tbWVu dHMgZm9yIHNtcF9jYWxsX2Z1bmN0aW9uX21hbnkoKSBpdCBpcyBzYWlkIHRoYXQNCj4gcHJlZW1w dGlvbiBtdXN0IGJlIGRpc2FibGVkIGR1cmluZyBpdHMgZXhlY3V0aW9uLiBBbmQgdGhhdCBmdW5j dGlvbiBnZXRzIGV4ZWN1dGVkDQo+IGFtb25nIG90aGVyIHdheXMgbGlrZSB0aGF0Og0KPiAtLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLT44LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gICBmbHVz aF90bGJfcmFuZ2UoKQ0KPiAgICAgLT4gb25fZWFjaF9jcHVfbWFzaygpDQo+ICAgICAgICAgIC0+ IHNtcF9jYWxsX2Z1bmN0aW9uX21hbnkoKQ0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLT44 LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gDQo+IEknbSBub3Qgc2VlaW5nIHJpZ2h0IG5vdyBh bnkgcmVhbCBwcm9ibGVtIHdpdGggY3VycmVudCBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBidXQNCj4gc29tZSBh cmNoaXRlY3R1cmVzIGRvIHRoYXQgdGh1cyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24uDQo+IA0KPiAtQWxleGV5 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com (Alexey Brodkin) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 19:15:11 +0000 Subject: Do we need to disable preemption in flush_tlb_range()? In-Reply-To: <1519917189.13866.6.camel@synopsys.com> References: <1519917189.13866.6.camel@synopsys.com> List-ID: Message-ID: <1521054910.11552.44.camel@synopsys.com> To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org Ping! On Thu, 2018-03-01@18:13 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Vineet, > > Just noticed that in comments for smp_call_function_many() it is said that > preemption must be disabled during its execution. And that function gets executed > among other ways like that: > -------------------------->8----------------------- > flush_tlb_range() > -> on_each_cpu_mask() > -> smp_call_function_many() > -------------------------->8----------------------- > > I'm not seeing right now any real problem with current implementation but > some architectures do that thus the question. > > -Alexey