Re: [PATCH RT 3/4] mips-remove-smp-reserve-lock.patch
From: David Daney <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-07 19:47:23
Also in:
lkml
On 06/07/2012 12:32 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 12:08 -0700, David Daney wrote:quoted
quoted
Should it go to mainline stable?I don't think it is necessary. As far as I know, RT may be the only thing that needs it.Ah, you're right. As this is just an issue because it is called with interrupts disabled (from stop_machine). Although it's interesting that the mips code, re-enables interrupts from that function. From kernel/cpu.c: _cpu_down() { __stop_machine(take_cpu_down,&tcd_param, cpumask_of(cpu)); take_cpu_down() { err = __cpu_disable(); kernel/stop_machine.c: __stop_machine(int (*fn)(void *) ...) { local_irq_save(flags); hard_irq_disable(); ret = (*fn)(data); local_irq_restore(flags); arch/mips/include/asm/smp.h: static inline int __cpu_disable(void) { extern struct plat_smp_ops *mp_ops; /* private */ return mp_ops->cpu_disable(); } arch/mips/cavium-octeon/smp.c: octeon_cpu_disable(void) { local_irq_disable(); fixup_irqs(); local_irq_enable(); struct plat_smp_ops octeon_smp_ops = { .cpu_disable = octeon_cpu_disable, Is this expected? It causes the cpu notifiers to be called with interrupts enabled. Not sure if that's a problem or not.
I am inclined to go with your instinct here. Probably we shouldn't
unconditionally local_irq_enable() here.
Perhaps {,raw}_local_irq_save/{,raw}local_irq_restore would be better.
Or even no local irq enable manipulation...
In any event, I may let Ralf sort it out.
David Daney