2012/10/22 Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>:
> On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 12:22 -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> + if (empty) {
>> + /*
>> + * If an IPI is requested, raise it right away. Otherwise
>> wait
>> + * for the next tick unless it's stopped. Now if the arch
>> uses
>> + * some other obscure way than IPI to raise an irq work,
>> just raise
>> + * and don't think further.
>> + */
>> + if (ipi || !arch_irq_work_has_ipi() ||
>> tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
>> + arch_irq_work_raise();
>> + }
>> preempt_enable();
>> }
>
> Doesn't this have a problem where we enqueue the first lazy and then one
> with ipi? In that case it appears we won't send the IPI because the
> queue wasn't empty.
Good point! I need to send an ipi in that case. Will fix on the next version.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
