On 05/19, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> However, an IPI sent much earlier might arrive late on the target CPU
> (possibly _after_ the CPU has gone offline) due to hardware latencies,
> and due to this, the smp-call-function callbacks queued on the outgoing
> CPU might not get noticed (and hence not executed) at all.
OK, but
> +void flush_smp_call_function_queue(void)
> +{
> + struct llist_head *head;
> + struct llist_node *entry;
> + struct call_single_data *csd, *csd_next;
> +
> + WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> +
> + head = &__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue);
> +
> + if (likely(llist_empty(head)))
> + return;
> +
> + entry = llist_del_all(head);
> + entry = llist_reverse_order(entry);
> +
> + llist_for_each_entry_safe(csd, csd_next, entry, llist) {
> + csd->func(csd->info);
> + csd_unlock(csd);
> + }
> +}
why do we need it? Can't multi_cpu_stop() just call
generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() ? This cpu is still online,
we should not worry about WARN_ON(!cpu_online()) ?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
