On Thursday 25 February 2016 08:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 07:53:39PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> But then ARM CONFIG_SMP on UP hardware will still crap out because there
>> is no way to send IPI to self. Same as the bug in above discussion. I'm
>> surprised
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 07:53:39PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> But then ARM CONFIG_SMP on UP hardware will still crap out because there
> is no way to send IPI to self. Same as the bug in above discussion. I'm
> surprised they way ARM guys worked around it.
We haven't worked around it - the code
On Thursday 25 February 2016 07:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:21:25AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
What I actually meant was is it OK for irq_work_queue_on() to be called
locally
(is this a sched bug/optimization(. Further if it is OK to be called, does
>>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:21:25AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> >> What I actually meant was is it OK for irq_work_queue_on() to be called
> >> locally
> >> (is this a sched bug/optimization(. Further if it is OK to be called, does
> >> it need
> >> to do behave more like irq_work_queue() i.e. ca
On Tuesday 23 February 2016 03:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:51:42AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On Friday 19 February 2016 12:17 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> I've been debugging a csd_lock_wait() deadlock on SMP+PREEMPT ARC HS38x2
>>> and it
>>> turn
On Tuesday 23 February 2016 04:28 PM, Noam Camus wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:pet...@infradead.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:40 PM
>
>> The only requirement for irq_work is that it runs after the NMI completes
>> and runs from regular IRQ context. >There are no strict int
>From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:pet...@infradead.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:40 PM
>The only requirement for irq_work is that it runs after the NMI completes and
>runs from regular IRQ context. >There are no strict interrupt priority
>requirements, only that it happens.
We here alr
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:51:23PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> >
> > Now the distinct difference between arch_irq_work_raise() and
> > arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() is that arch_irq_work_raise()
> > should be NMI-safe.
>
> Ok - so when I implement interrupt priorities (aka NMI for ARC), t
>> What I actually meant was is it OK for irq_work_queue_on() to be called
>> locally
>> (is this a sched bug/optimization(. Further if it is OK to be called, does
>> it need
>> to do behave more like irq_work_queue() i.e. call arch_irq_work_raise() or
>> arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() is e
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:51:42AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Friday 19 February 2016 12:17 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I've been debugging a csd_lock_wait() deadlock on SMP+PREEMPT ARC HS38x2
> > and it
> > turned out to be lot more interesting than I'd hoped for. This is
On Friday 19 February 2016 12:17 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I've been debugging a csd_lock_wait() deadlock on SMP+PREEMPT ARC HS38x2 and
> it
> turned out to be lot more interesting than I'd hoped for. This is stock v4.4
>
> Trouble starts with an IPI to self which doesn't get deliv
11 matches
Mail list logo