From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
To: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>, y@unix-os.sc.intel.com
Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustycorp.com.au>,
Srivattsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] x86_64: CPU hotplug support.
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:08:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050602170820.B17378@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506021742390.3157@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>; from zwane@arm.linux.org.uk on Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:45:14PM -0600
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:45:14PM -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Ashok Raj wrote:
>
> > > > + lock_ipi_call_lock();
> > > > cpu_set(smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_map);
> > > > mb();
> > > > + unlock_ipi_call_lock();
> > >
> > > What's that? Is this another smp_call_function race workaround? I thought
> > > there was an additional patch to avoid the broadcast.
> >
> > The other patch avoids sending to offline cpu's, but we read cpu_online_map
> > and clear self bit in smp_call_function. If a cpu comes online, dont we
> > want this cpu to take part in smp_call_function?
>
> The lock being held in smp_call_function whilst we access cpu_online_map
> should prevent another processor coming online within that operation
> shouldn't it? So There shouldn't be any processors coming online except
> for right after or before an smp_call_function.
precicely why we hold the same lock when we set the bit in cpu_online_map
during cpu_up as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-03 0:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-02 12:57 [patch 0/5] x86_64 CPU hotplug patch series Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 12:57 ` [patch 1/5] x86_64: Change init sections for CPU hotplug support Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 20:14 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-06-02 23:19 ` Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 12:57 ` [patch 2/5] x86_64: " Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 20:19 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-06-02 23:33 ` Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 23:45 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-06-03 0:08 ` Ashok Raj [this message]
2005-06-03 2:01 ` Shaohua Li
2005-06-03 14:25 ` Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 12:57 ` [patch 3/5] x86_64: CPU hotplug sibling map cleanup Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 12:57 ` [patch 4/5] x86_64: Dont use broadcast shortcut to make it cpu hotplug safe Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 12:58 ` [patch 5/5] x86_64: Provide ability to choose using shortcuts for IPI in flat mode Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 20:10 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-06-02 23:15 ` Ashok Raj
2005-06-02 20:25 ` [patch 0/5] x86_64 CPU hotplug patch series Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-06-03 16:35 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-03 17:15 ` Ashok Raj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050602170820.B17378@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--to=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustycorp.com.au \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
--cc=y@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.