Re: [PATCH 0/4 v3] smp_call_function_many issues from review

[Mike Galbraith]

On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 13:27 -0600, Milton Miller wrote:
> Picking up this thread from the beginning of Feburary,  I updated
> the comments in 3 and 4 based on Paul's review.  I have inserted
> my proposed alternative to Paul's additional patch as patch 2,
> and tweaked the changelog on 1.
> 
> [PATCH 1/4 v3] call_function_many: fix list delete vs add race
> [PATCH 2/4 v3] call_function_many: add missing ordering
> [PATCH 3/4 v3] smp_call_function_many: handle concurrent clearing of mask
> [PATCH 4/4 v3] smp_call_function_interrupt: use typedef and %pf
> 
> Peter Z acked a prior version of patch 1, and Mike Galbraith has
> done some stress testing on the combinaton of 1,3,4, and Paul's patch.

I beat hell out of all v2 + Paul's ordering patch.  These are verified
to have fixed a nasty enterprise cluster problem.

> The prior posting of this series is available here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/522021/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/522031/
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129654439817236&w=2
> 
> And Paul's additional patch from review was here
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/525891/
> 
> Looking forward, I would suggest 1 and 2 are required for stable, 3 may
> be suitable..

Problematic clusters say 3 is most excellent stable material.

	-Mike

--
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/