On 04/05/2016 02:11 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> I think there is more broken: if I willingly let __cpu_disable() fail and
> try to offline e.g. cpu 2 for the second time chcpu will never return.
> Plus the console contains several "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 01"
> messages.
…
>
> All of this
On 04/05/2016 02:11 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> I think there is more broken: if I willingly let __cpu_disable() fail and
> try to offline e.g. cpu 2 for the second time chcpu will never return.
> Plus the console contains several "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 01"
> messages.
…
>
> All of this
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:57:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 01:51 PM, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >>> Subsequently, in this
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:57:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 01:51 PM, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >>> Subsequently, in this
On 04/05/2016 01:51 PM, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>> Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() call will be executed on
>>> the wrong cpu.
>>
>> .. or to
On 04/05/2016 01:51 PM, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>> Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() call will be executed on
>>> the wrong cpu.
>>
>> .. or to
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:51:29PM +0200, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() call will be executed on
> > > the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:51:29PM +0200, rcoch...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() call will be executed on
> > > the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() call will be executed on
> > the wrong cpu.
>
> .. or to illustrate this behaviour: the following patch (white
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() call will be executed on
> > the wrong cpu.
>
> .. or to illustrate this behaviour: the following patch (white
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> > >> @@ -1510,7
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:23:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> > >> @@ -1510,7
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> >> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measurement_alert(stru
> >> static int
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> >> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measurement_alert(stru
> >> static int
On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
>> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measurement_alert(stru
>> static int cpumf_pmu_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>unsigned
On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
>> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measurement_alert(stru
>> static int cpumf_pmu_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>unsigned
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 12:27:20PM +0200, Anna-Maria Gleixner wrote:
> Since commit 1cf4f629d9d2 ("cpu/hotplug: Move online calls to
> hotplugged cpu") it is ensured that callbacks of CPU_ONLINE and
> CPU_DOWN_PREPARE are processed on the hotplugged CPU. Due to this SMP
> function calls are no
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 12:27:20PM +0200, Anna-Maria Gleixner wrote:
> Since commit 1cf4f629d9d2 ("cpu/hotplug: Move online calls to
> hotplugged cpu") it is ensured that callbacks of CPU_ONLINE and
> CPU_DOWN_PREPARE are processed on the hotplugged CPU. Due to this SMP
> function calls are no
Since commit 1cf4f629d9d2 ("cpu/hotplug: Move online calls to
hotplugged cpu") it is ensured that callbacks of CPU_ONLINE and
CPU_DOWN_PREPARE are processed on the hotplugged CPU. Due to this SMP
function calls are no longer required.
Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of
Since commit 1cf4f629d9d2 ("cpu/hotplug: Move online calls to
hotplugged cpu") it is ensured that callbacks of CPU_ONLINE and
CPU_DOWN_PREPARE are processed on the hotplugged CPU. Due to this SMP
function calls are no longer required.
Replace smp_call_function_single() with a direct call of
20 matches
Mail list logo
