On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> +static int xen_cpu_notification(struct notifier_block *self,
> >> + unsigned long action,
> >> + void *hcpu)
> >> +{
> >> + int cpu = (long)hcpu;
> >> +
> >> + switch (action) {
> >> + case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
> >> + xen_percpu_init(cpu);
> >> + break;
> >> + case CPU_STARTING:
> >> + xen_interrupt_init();
> >> + break;
> >
> > Is CPU_STARTING guaranteed to be called on the new cpu only?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, why not call both xen_percpu_init and xen_interrupt_init on
> > CPU_STARTING?
>
> Just in case that xen_vcpu is used somewhere else by a cpu notifier
> callback CPU_STARTING. We don't know which callback is called first.
Could you please elaborate a bit more on the problem you are trying to
describe?
> > As it stands I think you introduced a subtle change (that might be OK
> > but I think is unintentional): xen_percpu_init might not be called from
> > the same cpu as its target anymore.
>
> No, xen_percpu_init and xen_interrupt_init are called on the boot cpu at
> the end of xen_guest_init.
Is CPU_UP_PREPARE guaranteed to be called on the target cpu? I think
not, therefore you would be executing xen_percpu_init for cpu1 on cpu0.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
