On 06/25/2014 10:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/25/2014 04:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:24:11PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> Wait, that was a stupid idea. hotplug_cfd() already invokes irq_work_run
>>> indirectly via flush_smp_call_function_queue(). So irq_work_cpu_notify()
>>> doesn't need to invoke it again, AFAIU. So perhaps we can get rid of
>>> irq_work_cpu_notify() altogether?
>>
>> Just so...
>>
>> getting up at 6am and sitting in an airport terminal doesn't seem to
>> agree with me; any more silly fail here?
>>
>> ---
>> Subject: irq_work: Remove BUG_ON in irq_work_run()
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed Jun 25 07:13:07 CEST 2014
>>
>> Because of a collision with 8d056c48e486 ("CPU hotplug, smp: flush any
>> pending IPI callbacks before CPU offline"), which ends up calling
>> hotplug_cfd()->flush_smp_call_function_queue()->irq_work_run(), which
>> is not from IRQ context.
>>
>> And since that already calls irq_work_run() from the hotplug path,
>> remove our entire hotplug handling.
>
> Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [with the s/static// already mentioned in this thread, obviously:-)]
next-20140701 still seems to fail CPU hotplug. I assume this patch
hasn't yet been applied for some reason?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
