On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure about that aspect: I think disabling IRQs
> might be necessary with some APICs (if lower levels don't
> disable IRQs), to make sure the 'local APIC busy' bit isn't
> set:
Right. But afaik not for the x2apic case, which this is. The x2apic
doesn't even have a busy bit, and sending the ipi is a single write,
I agree that when doing other apic implementations, we may need to
guarantee atomicity for things like "wait for apic idle, then send the
ipi".
Linus
--
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/
