lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] x86: Rendezvous all the cpu's for MTRR/PAT init

* Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:20:57PM -0700, Suresh B wrote:
> > To make it clean I can move the smp_store_cpu_info() call before
> > local_irq_disable() in smp_callin(). But that needs more changes (for
> > xen etc). So thinking more, I think it is safe to do smp_call_function()
> > with interrupts disabled as the caller is currently not in the
> > cpu_online_mask.
> >
> > i.e., no one else sends smp_call_function interrupt to this AP who is
> > doing smp_call_function() with interrupts disabled and as such there
> > won't be any deadlocks typically associated with calling
> > smp_call_function() with interrupts disabled. Copied Nick to confirm or
> > correct my understanding.
> >
> > New patch appended removes this irq enable/disable sequence around
> > mtrr_ap_init() and add's a cpu_online() check in smp_call_function
> > warn-on's.
>
> Yes this seems like a fine idea to me. Maybe also add a
> WARN_ON(cpu_online) in the interrupt-side as well just to
> make it clear.
>
> If you split the patch out with its own changelog and give
> a comment for the special case, then you can add an
> Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
>
> Although until you get acks from all arch maintainers, the
> functionality would have to only be used on a per-arch basis but
> that's probably OK as it's a pretty tricky thing for generic code
> to be doing :)

Also, Suresh, please generate patches with diffstat included so
that the arch impact can be deducted at a glance.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-19 15:27    [W:0.053 / U:1.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site