On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
> Have a look into irq_work_queue(). There is:
> /*
> * If the work is not "lazy" or the tick is stopped, raise the irq
> * work interrupt (if supported by the arch), otherwise, just wait
> * for the next tick. We do this even for unbound work to make sure
> * *some* CPU will be doing the work.
> */
> if (!(work->flags & IRQ_WORK_LAZY) || tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> if (!this_cpu_cmpxchg(irq_work_raised, 0, 1))
> arch_irq_work_raise();
> }
>
> So we raise an interrupt if there would be no timer ticking (which is
> what I suppose you mean by "CPU is idle"). That is nothing changed by my
> patches...
That said I agree that it would be nice to have smp_call_function_many() support
non waiting calls, something based on llist, that would be less deadlock prone
to begin with.
--
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/
