Patchwork [08/10] SPARC: smp: remove call to ipi_call_lock_irq()/ipi_call_unlock_irq()

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Yong Zhang
Date May 29, 2012, 7:16 a.m.
Message ID <1338275765-3217-9-git-send-email-yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/161660/
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show

Comments

Yong Zhang - May 29, 2012, 7:16 a.m.
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@windriver.com>

1) call_function.lock used in smp_call_function_many() is just to protect
   call_function.queue and &data->refs, cpu_online_mask is outside of the
   lock. And it's not necessary to protect cpu_online_mask,
   because data->cpumask is pre-calculate and even if a cpu is brougt up
   when calling arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(), it's harmless because
   validation test in generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() will take care
   of it.

2) For cpu down issue, stop_machine() will guarantee that no concurrent
   smp_call_fuction() is processing.

Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
---
 arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c |    6 ++----
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Srivatsa S. Bhat - May 29, 2012, 8:01 a.m.
On 05/29/2012 12:46 PM, Yong Zhang wrote:

> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@windriver.com>
> 
> 1) call_function.lock used in smp_call_function_many() is just to protect
>    call_function.queue and &data->refs, cpu_online_mask is outside of the
>    lock. And it's not necessary to protect cpu_online_mask,
>    because data->cpumask is pre-calculate and even if a cpu is brougt up
>    when calling arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(), it's harmless because
>    validation test in generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() will take care
>    of it.
> 
> 2) For cpu down issue, stop_machine() will guarantee that no concurrent
>    smp_call_fuction() is processing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c |    6 ++----
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
> index f591598..60e745c 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
> @@ -124,9 +124,9 @@ void __cpuinit smp_callin(void)
>  	while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpuid, &smp_commenced_mask))
>  		rmb();
> 
> -	ipi_call_lock_irq();
> +	local_irq_disable();


This looks odd. IRQs must not have been enabled at this point.
Just remove the call to local_irq_enable() that is found a few lines above
this line and then you won't have to add this call to local_irq_disable().

>  	set_cpu_online(cpuid, true);
> -	ipi_call_unlock_irq();
> +	local_irq_enable();
> 

>  	/* idle thread is expected to have preempt disabled */

>  	preempt_disable();
> @@ -1308,9 +1308,7 @@ int __cpu_disable(void)
>  	mdelay(1);
>  	local_irq_disable();
> 
> -	ipi_call_lock();
>  	set_cpu_online(cpu, false);
> -	ipi_call_unlock();
> 
>  	cpu_map_rebuild();
> 



Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Miller - May 29, 2012, 8:14 a.m.
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:31:54 +0530

> On 05/29/2012 12:46 PM, Yong Zhang wrote:
> 
>> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@windriver.com>
>> 
>> 1) call_function.lock used in smp_call_function_many() is just to protect
>>    call_function.queue and &data->refs, cpu_online_mask is outside of the
>>    lock. And it's not necessary to protect cpu_online_mask,
>>    because data->cpumask is pre-calculate and even if a cpu is brougt up
>>    when calling arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(), it's harmless because
>>    validation test in generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() will take care
>>    of it.
>> 
>> 2) For cpu down issue, stop_machine() will guarantee that no concurrent
>>    smp_call_fuction() is processing.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
>> Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>>  arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c |    6 ++----
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
>> index f591598..60e745c 100644
>> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
>> @@ -124,9 +124,9 @@ void __cpuinit smp_callin(void)
>>  	while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpuid, &smp_commenced_mask))
>>  		rmb();
>> 
>> -	ipi_call_lock_irq();
>> +	local_irq_disable();
> 
> 
> This looks odd. IRQs must not have been enabled at this point.
> Just remove the call to local_irq_enable() that is found a few lines above
> this line and then you won't have to add this call to local_irq_disable().

Agreed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
index f591598..60e745c 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
@@ -124,9 +124,9 @@  void __cpuinit smp_callin(void)
 	while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpuid, &smp_commenced_mask))
 		rmb();
 
-	ipi_call_lock_irq();
+	local_irq_disable();
 	set_cpu_online(cpuid, true);
-	ipi_call_unlock_irq();
+	local_irq_enable();
 
 	/* idle thread is expected to have preempt disabled */
 	preempt_disable();
@@ -1308,9 +1308,7 @@  int __cpu_disable(void)
 	mdelay(1);
 	local_irq_disable();
 
-	ipi_call_lock();
 	set_cpu_online(cpu, false);
-	ipi_call_unlock();
 
 	cpu_map_rebuild();