Re: [patch] i386/x86_64: smp_call_function locking inconsistency

[Jan Glauber]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/