Re: [PATCH] make voyager work again after the cpumask_t changes

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 15:10, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Yes, the generic code was like that too.  It was causing lockups.  Sorry, I
> did not realise that voyager had a private invalidatation implementation.

It actually has to since the invalidation implementation is a property
of the SMP HAL...fortunately voyager is the only subarch that has to
replace the SMP HAL wholesale.

> Officially smp_invalidate_needed should be a cpumask_t and
> smp_invalidate_interrupt() should be using cpu_isset() rather than
> open-coded bitops.  For all those 64-way voyagers out there ;)
> 
> (Actually it is legitimate: you may want to run a NR_CPUS=48 kernel on a
> 2-way voyager just for testing purposes).  I'll drop your patch in as-is,
> and maybe Bill can take a look at cpumaskifying it sometime?

OK.

Actually, looking at the code made me realise that we can kill the
tlbstate_lock and run lockless, so I'll play with doing that too.

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/