Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp_call_function: don't use lock in call_function_data

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Andi Kleen <andi@...>, Pallipadi, Venkatesh <venkatesh.pallipadi@...>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...>
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 9:47 pm

On Friday 22 August 2008 10:29, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

Actually I wanted to convert the cpu_clear operation to be non-atomic,
and keep it under the lock. Thus the spinlock would save one atomic
operation. I simply forgot about this after Jens took over the patchset.

We could get rid of that WARN_ON branch in 2.6.28 I expect, unless we
see it trigger.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 1/2] smp_call_function: don't use lock in call_functi..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Thu Aug 21, 8:29 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp_call_function: don't use lock in call_fu..., Nick Piggin, (Thu Aug 21, 9:47 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp_call_function: don't use lock in call_fu..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Thu Aug 21, 8:36 pm)