On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:51:24AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > > > > Presumably in large part because I'm in code that doesn't require Giant, > > > so there are no lock conflicts. > > > > I don't think that's the case. It think we're just not stopping the CPUs > > or keep them stopped. > > I agree with that interpretation -- I was suggesting that the reason this > problem might not be noticed is that a lot of our code paths require > Giant, and it's only when you panic in code without Giant that Ah, ok. The thing that strikes me as odd, if not wrong, is that we use PCPU(CPUID) to update the stopped_cpus mask, while we should be using PCPU(CPUMASK) for that. See attached patch (untested). Am I off-base here? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel_at_xcllnt.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:50 UTC