From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: "mingo@elte.hu" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"trenn@novell.com" <trenn@novell.com>,
"prarit@redhat.com" <prarit@redhat.com>,
"tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
"rusty@rustcorp.com.au" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Song, Youquan" <youquan.song@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] stop_machine: implement stop_machine_from_offline_cpu()
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:45:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1308901534.27849.10.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1308853153.15847.90.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com>
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 11:19 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > In commit d0af9eed5aa91b6b7b5049cae69e5ea956fd85c3 you mention that its
> > specific to HT, wouldn't it make sense to limit the stop-machine use in
> > the next patch to the sibling mask instead of the whole machine?
>
> That specific issue was seen in the context of HT. But the SDM
> guidelines (pre date HT and) are applicable for SMP too.
Sure, but we managed to ignore those long enough, could we not continue
to violate them and keep to the minimum that is working in practice?
>From what I understand the explosion is WSM+/VMX on HT only because the
siblings share state, or do we have proof that it yields problems
between cores as well?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-24 7:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-22 22:20 [patch 0/4] MTRR rendezvous deadlock fix and cleanups using stop_machine() Suresh Siddha
2011-06-22 22:20 ` [patch 1/4] x86, mtrr: lock stop machine during MTRR rendezvous sequence Suresh Siddha
2011-06-23 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-06-23 9:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-06-23 9:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-06-23 18:16 ` Suresh Siddha
2011-06-22 22:20 ` [patch 2/4] stop_machine: reorganize stop_cpus() implementation Suresh Siddha
2011-06-22 22:20 ` [patch 3/4] stop_machine: implement stop_machine_from_offline_cpu() Suresh Siddha
2011-06-23 9:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-06-23 9:28 ` Tejun Heo
2011-06-23 9:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-06-23 18:19 ` Suresh Siddha
2011-06-24 7:45 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-06-24 17:55 ` Suresh Siddha
2011-06-22 22:20 ` [patch 4/4] x86, mtrr: use stop_machine() for doing MTRR rendezvous Suresh Siddha
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=1308901534.27849.10.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=trenn@novell.com \
--cc=youquan.song@intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox