Skip to content

R
raspberrypi-kernel

openeuler / raspberrypi-kernel

通知 13
Star 1
Fork 0
R
raspberrypi-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 25 2月, 2009 4 次提交
    • I
      generic-ipi: cleanups · 0b13fda1
      由 Ingo Molnar 提交于 
      Andrew pointed out that there's some small amount of
style rot in kernel/smp.c.

Clean it up.
Reported-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      0b13fda1
    • P
      generic-ipi: remove CSD_FLAG_WAIT · 6e275637
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Oleg noticed that we don't strictly need CSD_FLAG_WAIT, rework
the code so that we can use CSD_FLAG_LOCK for both purposes.
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      6e275637
    • P
      generic-ipi: remove kmalloc() · 8969a5ed
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Remove the use of kmalloc() from the smp_call_function_*()
calls.

Steven's generic-ipi patch (d7240b98: generic-ipi: use per cpu
data for single cpu ipi calls) started the discussion on the use
of kmalloc() in this code and fixed the
smp_call_function_single(.wait=0) fallback case.

In this patch we complete this by also providing means for the
_many() call, which fully removes the need for kmalloc() in this
code.

The problem with the _many() call is that other cpus might still
be observing our entry when we're done with it. It solved this
by dynamically allocating data elements and RCU-freeing it.

We solve it by using a single per-cpu entry which provides
static storage and solves one half of the problem (avoiding
referencing freed data).

The other half, ensuring the queue iteration it still possible,
is done by placing re-used entries at the head of the list. This
means that if someone was still iterating that entry when it got
moved, he will now re-visit the entries on the list he had
already seen, but avoids skipping over entries like would have
happened had we placed the new entry at the end.

Furthermore, visiting entries twice is not a problem, since we
remove our cpu from the entry's cpumask once its called.

Many thanks to Oleg for his suggestions and him poking holes in
my earlier attempts.
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      8969a5ed
    • N
      generic IPI: simplify barriers and locking · 15d0d3b3
      由 Nick Piggin 提交于 
      Simplify the barriers in generic remote function call interrupt
code.

Firstly, just unconditionally take the lock and check the list
in the generic_call_function_single_interrupt IPI handler. As
we've just taken an IPI here, the chances are fairly high that
there will be work on the list for us, so do the locking
unconditionally. This removes the tricky lockless list_empty
check and dubious barriers. The change looks bigger than it is
because it is just removing an outer loop.

Secondly, clarify architecture specific IPI locking rules.
Generic code has no tools to impose any sane ordering on IPIs if
they go outside normal cache coherency, ergo the arch code must
make them appear to obey cache coherency as a "memory operation"
to initiate an IPI, and a "memory operation" to receive one.
This way at least they can be reasoned about in generic code,
and smp_mb used to provide ordering.

The combination of these two changes means that explict barriers
can be taken out of queue handling for the single case -- shared
data is explicitly locked, and ipi ordering must conform to
that, so no barriers needed. An extra barrier is needed in the
many handler, so as to ensure we load the list element after the
IPI is received.

Does any architecture actually *need* these barriers? For the
initiator I could see it, but for the handler I would be
surprised. So the other thing we could do for simplicity is just
to require that, rather than just matching with cache coherency,
we just require a full barrier before generating an IPI, and
after receiving an IPI. In which case, the smp_mb()s can go
away. But just for now, we'll be on the safe side and use the
barriers (they're in the slow case anyway).
Signed-off-by: NNick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Acked-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      15d0d3b3
  3. 24 2月, 2009 8 次提交
  5. 23 2月, 2009 21 次提交
  7. 22 2月, 2009 7 次提交