From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Michael Neuling To: Brian King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] powerpc: Ignore IPIs to offline CPUs In-reply-to: <201004210154.o3L1sXaR001791@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> References: <201004210154.o3L1sXaR001791@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:04:38 +1000 Message-ID: <12054.1271815478@neuling.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <201004210154.o3L1sXaR001791@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote: > > Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an > offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs, > just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress testing > SMT enable/disable. This seems like a recipe for disaster. Do we at least need a WARN_ON_ONCE? > Signed-off-by: Brian King > --- > > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff -puN arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c~powerpc_xics_ipi_offline arch /powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c > --- linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c~powerpc_xics_ipi_offline 2010-04-20 20:46:06.000000000 -0500 > +++ linux-2.6-bjking1/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c 2010-04-20 20:4 7:53.000000000 -0500 > @@ -545,7 +545,8 @@ static irqreturn_t xics_ipi_dispatch(int > { > unsigned long *tgt = &per_cpu(xics_ipi_message, cpu); > > - WARN_ON(cpu_is_offline(cpu)); > + if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > > mb(); /* order mmio clearing qirr */ > while (*tgt) { > _ FYI random white space change here. > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > Mikey