[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/55781: more rump fixes
The following reply was made to PR kern/55781; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Ruslan Nikolaev <nruslan_devel%yahoo.com@localhost>
To: Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>
Cc: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, kern-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost,
Subject: Re: kern/55781: more rump fixes
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 13:47:21 -0500
This is called *in lieu* of rump_init() for > 1 CPU (for SMP when a
callback function to wake up sleeping CPUs is needed).
Basically, it should be new rump_init() but there is plenty of code
which calls it in the current source tree
On 11/4/20 12:49 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Ruslan Nikolaev <nruslan_devel%yahoo.com@localhost
>> <mailto:nruslan_devel%yahoo.com@localhost>> wrote:
>> No, Christos, the point is different here.
>> Only the bootstrap CPU calls rump_init() even after our change.
>> However, during rump_init() other CPUs are already scheduled some
>> tasks, so we need to wake them up, we cannot simply wait until
>> rump_init() finishes. If we wake them too early (i.e., before
>> rump_init()), their state will not be properly initialized yet. So,
>> we need to wake them up while in rump_init() but only *after* their
>> state is fully initialized.
>> So, this is when the bootstrap CPU will call the callback function.
>> Note that other CPUs will not call rump_init(), they will simply
>> schedule some queued tasks.
>> Does it make sense?
> Yes, but where is rump_init_callback() called with a non-NULL argument?
Main Index |
Thread Index |