Re: [PATCH RT 3/4] mips-remove-smp-reserve-lock.patch

[David Daney]

On 06/07/2012 12:32 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 12:08 -0700, David Daney wrote:
>
> > > Should it go to mainline stable?
> >
> > I don't think it is necessary.  As far as I know, RT may be the only
> > thing that needs it.
>
> Ah, you're right. As this is just an issue because it is called with
> interrupts disabled (from stop_machine). Although it's interesting that
> the mips code, re-enables interrupts from that function.
>
>  From kernel/cpu.c:
>
> _cpu_down() {
> 	 __stop_machine(take_cpu_down,&tcd_param, cpumask_of(cpu));
>
> take_cpu_down() {
> 	err = __cpu_disable();
>
> kernel/stop_machine.c:
>
> __stop_machine(int (*fn)(void *) ...) {
> 	local_irq_save(flags);
> 	hard_irq_disable();
> 	ret = (*fn)(data);
> 	local_irq_restore(flags);
>
>
> arch/mips/include/asm/smp.h:
>
> static inline int __cpu_disable(void)
> {
>          extern struct plat_smp_ops *mp_ops;     /* private */
>
>          return mp_ops->cpu_disable();
> }
>
> arch/mips/cavium-octeon/smp.c:
>
> octeon_cpu_disable(void) {
>          local_irq_disable();
>          fixup_irqs();
>          local_irq_enable();
>
> struct plat_smp_ops octeon_smp_ops = {
>          .cpu_disable            = octeon_cpu_disable,
>
>
> Is this expected? It causes the cpu notifiers to be called with
> interrupts enabled. Not sure if that's a problem or not.

I am inclined to go with your instinct here.  Probably we shouldn't 
unconditionally local_irq_enable() here.

Perhaps {,raw}_local_irq_save/{,raw}local_irq_restore would be better. 
Or even no local irq enable manipulation...

In any event, I may let Ralf sort it out.

David Daney


--
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/