On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:13:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> >> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> >> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ static void cpumf_measurement_alert(stru
> >> static int cpumf_pmu_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
> >> unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> >> {
> >> - unsigned int cpu = (long) hcpu;
> >> int flags;
> >>
> >> /* Ignore the notification if no events are scheduled on the PMU.
> >> @@ -1523,11 +1522,15 @@ static int cpumf_pmu_notifier(struct not
> >> case CPU_ONLINE:
> >> case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
> >> flags = PMC_INIT;
> >> - smp_call_function_single(cpu, setup_pmc_cpu, &flags, 1);
> >> + local_irq_disable();
> >> + setup_pmc_cpu(&flags);
> >> + local_irq_enable();
> >> break;
> >
> > ...but at least the CPU_DOWN_FAILED callback will not necessarily be called
> > on the cpu that couldn't be brought offline.
>
> I don't follow.
I was trying to say that if bringing a cpu down fails, then the cpu hotplug
notifier with CPU_DOWN_FAILED might be called on a cpu that is _not_ the
same cpu that was supposed to be brought offline.
Subsequently, in this case, the setup_pmc_cpu() call will be executed on
the wrong cpu.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
