* Rusty Russell ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 01:28:03 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Rusty Russell ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > I think it would be easier to just fast-path the num_online_cpus == 1
> > > case, even if you want to keep this "update_early" interface.
> >
> > Nope, that could lead to problems. I call core_immediate_update()
> > _very_ early, before boot_cpu_init() is called.
>
> Ah, I see the problem. It would in fact be clearer for us to move
> boot_cpu_init() up to just after smp_setup_processor_id() in start_kernel
> anyway, not just for this code, but in general.
>
Could be done.
> > Therefore,
> > cpu_online_map is not set yet. I am not sure the benefit of using
> > num_online_cpus outweights the added fragility wrt other boot process
> > initializations.
>
> I think it's still a win, though worth a comment that we always go via the
> non-IPI path for the early boot case.
>
Ok, another potential problem then :
If we fast-path the num_online_cpus == 1, then updates done after the
boot process will have to go through this code. Therefore, we would have
to disable interrupts in the early boot code.
However, I doubt it is safe to use the paravirtualized
local_irq_disable/enable before the paravirt code is executed ?
Mathieu
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
