From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 6] x86, UV: smp_processor_id in a preemptable region
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:15:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110615161518.GA24948@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110615160743.GA32008@sgi.com>
* Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:54:45PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:05:17PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > > > From: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Calling smp_processor_id() from within a preemptable region will issue
> > > > > a warning if DEBUG_PREEMPT is set.
> > > > >
> > > > > Diffed against 3.0.0-rc3
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > ?arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c | ? ?2 ++
> > > > > ?1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > Index: linux/arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c
> > > > > ===================================================================
> > > > > --- linux.orig/arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c
> > > > > +++ linux/arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c
> > > > > @@ -1334,7 +1334,9 @@ static ssize_t tunables_write(struct fil
> > > > >
> > > > > ? ? ? ?instr[count] = '\0';
> > > > >
> > > > > + ? ? ? preempt_disable(); /* avoid DEBUG_PREEMPT warning */
> > > >
> > > > I think above code comment, "avoid DEBUG_PREEMPT warning" should be to
> > > > something more meaningful. It's a BUG, if smp_processor_id() is called
> > > > within preemptible context. So, we don't want to hit that BUG.
> > >
> > > I agree that calling smp_processor_id() within a preemptible context is
> > > going to produce unpredictable results. In this particular case we just
> > > need a valid cpu number so that we can find a per-cpu structure.
> > > That structure contains a reasonable (sanity-checking) limit to the value
> > > of the tunable that is being written.
> >
> > So what happens if the code gets preempted away and this CPU is
> > hotplugged away? You'll reference a CPU ID that does not exist
> > anymore.
>
> You're right of course. But we don't support CPU hotplug on the UV
> hardware. There are enhancements needed in both the BIOS and Linux
> (BAU and GRU among them). They are on our work queue.
But here you put in yet another roadblock.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-15 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-14 23:06 [PATCH 1 of 6] x86, UV: smp_processor_id in a preemptable region Cliff Wickman
2011-06-15 6:05 ` Rakib Mullick
2011-06-15 13:52 ` Cliff Wickman
2011-06-15 15:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-06-15 16:07 ` Cliff Wickman
2011-06-15 16:15 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2011-06-15 16:40 ` Cliff Wickman
2011-06-15 17:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-06-15 18:58 ` Cliff Wickman
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=20110615161518.GA24948@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=cpw@sgi.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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