On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 01:14:40PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 19:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:34:44AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 10:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Make powerpc refrain from clearing a given to-be-offlined CPU's bit in the
> > > > cpu_online_mask until it has processed pending irqs.  This change
> > > > prevents other CPUs from being blindsided by an apparently offline CPU
> > > > nevertheless changing globally visible state.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Sounds reasonable... the only possible worry here is if somebody tries
> > > an IPI ... The IPI code will and the target CPU mask with the online
> > > map, so it may try to send to the to-be-offlined CPU and timeout, no ?
> > 
> > OK.  Do we need separate IPI and online masks?
> 
> Shouldn't we already have routed all interrupts to other CPUs anyway ?
> 
> IE. The affinity of all interrupts should have been updated. So the
> only thing we're going to get here are possibly IPIs and decrementer, 
> I don't see it being a big deal making sure we test we are online when
> receiving it.

It did look to me that the CPU removed itself from the interrupt queue
before re-enabling interrupts, so makes sense to me...

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/