On 05/13/12 13:24, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 01:04:15PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote: >> Are you sure that moving to low priority xcalls is the way to go? You >> can end up with CPUs not being updated because they are offline. > > Curiously, while I could reproduce the crash before this commit, I am > unable to reproduce it in any testing without the actual ucode update > happening - and I can not spot a bug in the xcall code that tries to make > sure the number of cpus that did run the callback is == the expected count > before returning. > > This clearly needs full analyzis.
I am pleased to revert this change once this xcall(9) issue has been fixed. Christoph
