On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> How about when the cpu that is going offline receives a timer interrupt
> just before setting its state to CPU_DEAD ? That is still possible right
> given that its clock devices may not have been shutdown and it is
> capable of receiving interrupts for a short duration. Even with the
> above patch, is the following scenario possible ?
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> t0 Receives timer interrupt
>
> t1 Sees that there are hrtimers
> to be serviced (hrtimers are not yet migrated)
>
> t2 calls hrtimer_interrupt()
>
> t3 tick_program_event() CPU_DEAD notifiers
> CPU0's td->evtdev = NULL
>
> t4 clockevent_program_event()
> references NULL tick device pointer
>
> So my concern is that since the CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_CPU_DEAD callback
> handles shutting down of devices besides moving tick related duties.
> it's functions may race with the hotplug cpu still handling tick events.
__cpu_disable() is supposed to block interrupts on the dying cpu.
But I agree, we should make it more robust. So we want an explicit
call for disabling the cpu local stuff and an explicit takeover of the
broadcast duty. I'm anyway distangling the clockevents_notify() stuff,
so it should be simple to do so.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
