lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: smp_call_function_single lockups

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that aspect: I think disabling
> > IRQs might be necessary with some APICs (if lower
> > levels don't disable IRQs), to make sure the 'local
> > APIC busy' bit isn't set:
>
> Right. But afaik not for the x2apic case, which this is.
> The x2apic doesn't even have a busy bit, and sending the
> ipi is a single write,

Ah, ok! Then the patch looks good to me.

( Originally we didn't wait for the ICR bit either, but
then it was added due to later erratas and was eventually
made an architectural requirement. )

> I agree that when doing other apic implementations, we
> may need to guarantee atomicity for things like "wait for
> apic idle, then send the ipi".

Yeah.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-20 21:21    [W:0.083 / U:0.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site