On Wed, Apr 23 2008, Mark Lord wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 23 2008, Mark Lord wrote:
> >..
> >>The second bug, is that for the halt case at least,
> >>nobody waits for the other CPU to actually halt
> >>before continuing.. so we sometimes enter the shutdown
> >>code while other CPUs are still active.
> >>
> >>This causes some machines to hang at shutdown,
> >>unless CPU_HOTPLUG is configured and takes them offline
> >>before we get here.
> >
> >I'm guessing there's a reason it doesn't pass '1' as the last argument,
> >because that would fix that issue?
> ..
>
> Undoubtedly -- perhaps the called CPU halts, and therefore cannot reply. :)
Uhm yes, I guess stop_this_cpu() does exactly what the name implies :-)
> But some kind of pre-halt ack, perhaps plus a short delay by the caller
> after receipt of the ack, would probably suffice to kill that bug.
>
> But I really haven't studied this code enough to know,
> other than that it historically has been a sticky area
> to poke around in.
Something like this will close the window to right up until the point
where the other CPUs have 'almost' called halt().
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
index 5398385..94ec9bf 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
@@ -155,8 +155,9 @@ static void stop_this_cpu(void *dummy)
/*
* Remove this CPU:
*/
- cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_map);
disable_local_APIC();
+ cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_map);
+ smp_wmb();
if (hlt_works(smp_processor_id()))
for (;;) halt();
for (;;);
@@ -175,6 +176,12 @@ static void native_smp_send_stop(void)
local_irq_save(flags);
smp_call_function(stop_this_cpu, NULL, 0, 0);
+
+ while (cpus_weight(cpu_online_map) > 1) {
+ cpu_relax();
+ smp_rmb();
+ }
+
disable_local_APIC();
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
