lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: qemu:arm test failure due to commit 8053871d0f7f (smp: Fix smp_call_function_single_async() locking)
On 04/19/2015 02:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does that smaller patch work equally well?
>>
>> .. and here's a properly formatted email and patch.
>>
>> Linus
>
>> kernel/smp.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
>> index 2aaac2c47683..07854477c164 100644
>> --- a/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -159,8 +159,10 @@ static int generic_exec_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *csd,
>> }
>>
>>
>> - if ((unsigned)cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu))
>> + if ((unsigned)cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu)) {
>> + csd_unlock(csd);
>> return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

> Btw., in this case we should probably also generate a WARN_ONCE()
> warning?
>
> I _think_ most such callers calling an SMP function call for offline
> or out of range CPUs are at minimum racy.
>
Not really; at least the online cpu part is an absolutely normal use
case for qemu-arm.

Sure, you can argue that "this isn't the real system", and that
qemu-arm should be "fixed", but there are reasons - the emulation
is (much) slower if the number of CPUs is set to 4, and not everyone
who wants to use qemu has a system with as many CPUs as the emulated
system would normally have.

Thanks,
Guenter



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-19 16:21    [W:0.112 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site