Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:39:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/35] clockevents: Fix cpu down race for hrtimer based
 broadcasting
Message-ID: <20150217103946.GD21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150216121435.203983131@infradead.org>
 <20150216122413.880378334@infradead.org>
 <54E2BDA1.3040003@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54E2BDA1.3040003@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1210
Lines: 31

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:33:45AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 05:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> >> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> 
> >> @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int
> >> 	__cpu_die(cpu);
> >>
> >> 	/* CPU is completely dead: tell everyone.  Too late to complain. */
> >>-	tick_cleanup_dead_cpu(cpu);
> >>+	tick_takeover(cpu);
> 
> Why is tick_handover() called after __cpu_die()?

See: [PATCH 11/35] clockevents: Cleanup dead cpu explicitely
it used to be a CPU_DEAD notifier.

But, I think, the actual reason would be that you cannot be sure its not
still ticking until its actually proper dead and buried, so trying to
take over a tick from a cpu that's still ticking is... well, suspect.

> And the function tick_takeover()
> is not introduced until the next patch. tick_broadcast_takeover_bc() is the
> function used instead in this patch.

Indeed so; let me correct that for bisection's sake.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/