On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:18:45 +0200 Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net> wrote:

quoted text
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:52:08 +0200 Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andi, is this correct ?
> >> Andrew, should I send a patch implementing this change ?
> > 
> > umm, I think all the smp_call_function fucntions are deadlocky if called
> > with local interrupts disabled, regardless of whether the calling CPU is in
> > the mask.
> > 
> > If CPU A is sending a cross-cpu call to CPU B and CPU B is sending a
> > cross-cpu call to CPU A, and they both have local interrupts disabled...
> 
> OK, so there are two errors:
> 
> 1- one I introduce myself (without any help from anyone) where
> smp_call_function() calls all online CPUs instead of calling all CPUs except itself.

I'd be pretty surprised if one was able to write a bug like that.  You mean
the CPU sends an IPI to itself and then loops around until it has serviced
that IPI?  And this works?  Wow.

And on_each_cpu() can call the handler function twice?

hm

quoted text
> 2- one in global_flush_tlb() which calls smp_call_function() with irqs disabled.

That would be a big bug, and surely we would already have picked it up.

<looks>

argh, mainline's x86_64 smp_call_function() doesn't do the check.  We've
had *heaps* of bugs in i386 where people were running smp_call_foo() under
local_irq_disable().  I wonder how many there are in x86_64?

quoted text
> I think I should at least correct #1 ?

I think we should correct all bugs ;)
-
unsubscribe notice
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/