Le 16/05/12 10:45, Christoph Egger a écrit :
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.
Sure, however I can't see where the xcall(9) code goes wrong. Care to
give more details, please? I cannot reproduce it on my side.
I am using xcall(9) to flush CPU-bound pool caches and having this sort
of bug can definitely cause serious cache incoherency that are hard to
track down afterwards.
Is it specific to high priority xcalls?
--
Jean-Yves Migeon
jeanyves.mig...@free.fr