lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [patch] i386/x86_64: smp_call_function locking inconsistency
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 09:42 +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
    > I just want to avoid that s390 has different semantics for
    > smp_call_functiom*() than any other architecture. But then again it
    > will probably not hurt since we allow more.
    > Another thing that comes into my mind is smp_call_function together
    > with cpu hotplug. Who is responsible that preemption and with that
    > cpu hotplug is disabled?
    > Is it the caller or smp_call_function itself?

    I think the caller must disable preemption since smp_call_function()
    means "do something on all but the current cpu". If the preempt_disable
    would happen only in smp_call_function() it could already be running on
    a different cpu, which is not what the caller wants.

    If preemption must be disabled before smp_call_function() we should have
    the same semantics for all smp_call_function_* variants.

    Jan

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-09 14:01    [W:2.550 / U:0.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site