Re: [patch] Let smp_call_function_single return -EBUSY.

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:11:37 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > This of course raises another question: it is not clear in which context
> > the smp_call_function* functions are supposed to be called. Should it be
> > with preemption disabled or is preemption enabled allowed as well?
> > If calling with preemption enabled is allowed then the powerpc implementation
> > is broken, since smp_processor_id() as well as num_online_cpus() may change
> > while they are accessed.
> 
> These are all excellent questions.  And important ones.

erk, I see your point.  If a caller is calling this with preemption enabled
then the current thread might at any time migrate onto the target CPU,
causing the smp_call_function_single() attempt to fail.  So the effects of
that call are basically a random crapshoot.

Often but not always, any code which is hanging onto a variable called
"cpu" while preemption enabled is buggy.

So yes, I'd say that from a sanity-of-implementation POV and for general
defensiveness, we should require that the called of
smp_call_function_single() has disabled preemption.

What a crock.
-
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/