Re: [PATCH] x86: UV cleanup

[Cliff Wickman]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 09:35:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Cliff Wickman <cpw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > From: Cliff Wickman <cpw@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > This patch tweaks a couple things:
> > 
> > - uv_flush_tlb_others()
> >   the WARN_ON(!in_atomic()); fails if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not enabled
> > 
> >   The #ifdef may not be the right fix. The fix is probably in the
> >   in_atomic macro, but I'm not sure what in_atomic() should return
> >   if CONFIG_PREEMPT is turned off.  I tested making it return 1 in that
> >   case, but that yielded tons of warnings.
> > 
> >   The simpler fix for tlb_uv.c would be to just drop the WARN_ON.
> > 
> > - uv_flush_send_and_wait() should return a pointer if the broadcast
> >   remote tlb shootdown requests fail. That causes the conventional IPI
> >   method of shootdown to be used.
> 
> hm, this isnt a cleanup but a fix - i.e. needs to go into x86/urgent as a 
> separate patch, right?

Yes, it is a fix.  I'll re-post, and send the WARN_ON issue as a
separate patch.

 
> and this:
> 
> > @@ -316,7 +316,9 @@ const struct cpumask *uv_flush_tlb_other
> >  	int locals = 0;
> >  	struct bau_desc *bau_desc;
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> >  	WARN_ON(!in_atomic());
> > +#endif
> 
> is indeed somewhat ugly - and we have no proper primitive to test for 
> atomicity. (mainly because we dont know about atomicity on a non-preempt 
> kernel)
> 
> 	Ingo
> --
> 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/

-- 
Cliff Wickman
Silicon Graphics, Inc.
cpw@xxxxxxx
(651) 683-3824
--
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/