[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] x86: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code
- To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:17:24 -0500
- Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bobby.prani@xxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx, dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, oleg@xxxxxxxxxx, dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx, edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx, mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>, dipankar@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:20:11 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
- cpu_die_common(cpu);
+ (void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
+ /* FIXME: Are the below calls really safe in case of timeout? */
Not for HVM guests (PV guests will only reach this point after target
cpu has been marked as down by the hypervisor).
We need at least to have a message similar to what native_cpu_die()
prints on cpu_wait_death() failure. And I think we should not call the
two routines below (three, actually --- there is also
xen_teardown_timer() below, which is not part of the diff).
-boris
xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
