Hi Russell,
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:50:35AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 11:14:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > The complete() should not be used on offlined CPU. Rewrite the
> > wait-complete mechanism with wait_on_bit_timeout().
>
> Yuck.
>
> I think that the IPI idea would be far better, and a much smaller patch.
> We can continue using the completions, but instead of running the
> completion on the dying CPU, the dying CPU triggers an IPI which does
> the completion on the requesting CPU.
This does look _much_ nicer than the bitmask approach.
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> index 194df2f1aa87..c623e27a9c85 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -73,6 +73,9 @@ enum ipi_msg_type {
> IPI_IRQ_WORK,
> IPI_COMPLETION,
> IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> + IPI_CPU_DEAD,
> +#endif
> };
[...]
> static const char *ipi_types[NR_IPI] __tracepoint_string = {
> #define S(x,s) [x] = s
> S(IPI_WAKEUP, "CPU wakeup interrupts"),
We'll probably want to add an entry here ("CPU teardown interrupts"?),
and bump NR_IPI in asm/hardirq.h.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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/
