Message-ID: <20080502020241.GA26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 May 2008 19:02:41 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:17PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 01:34:57PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 30 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:59:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:21AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > > This adds kernel/smp.c which contains helpers for IPI function calls. In
> > > > > > addition to supporting the existing smp_call_function() in a more efficient
> > > > > > manner, it also adds a more scalable variant called smp_call_function_single()
> > > > > > for calling a given function on a single CPU only.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The core of this is based on the x86-64 patch from Nick Piggin, lots of
> > > > > > changes since then. "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com> has
> > > > > > contributed lots of fixes and suggestions as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looks much better, but there still appears to be a potential deadlock
> > > > > with a CPU spinning waiting (indirectly) for a grace period to complete.
> > > > > Such spinning can prevent the grace period from ever completing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > See "!!!".
> > > > 
> > > > One additional question...  Why not handle memory allocation failure
> > > > by pretending that the caller to smp_call_function() had specified
> > > > "wait"?  The callee is in irq context, so cannot block, right?
> > > 
> > > (BTW a lot of thanks for your comments, I've read and understood most of
> > > it, I'll reply in due time - perhaps not until next week, I'll be gone
> > > from this afternoon and until monday).
> > > 
> > > We cannot always fallback to wait, unfortunately. If irqs are disabled,
> > > you could deadlock between two CPUs each waiting for each others IPI
> > > ack.
> > 
> > Good point!!!
> > 
> > > So the good question is how to handle the problem. The easiest would be
> > > to return ENOMEM and get rid of the fallback, but the fallback deadlocks
> > > are so far mostly in the theoretical realm since it PROBABLY would not
> > > occur in practice. But still no good enough, so I'm still toying with
> > > ideas on how to make it 100% bullet proof.
> > 
> > Here are some (probably totally broken) ideas:
> > 
> > 1.	Global lock so that only one smp_call_function() in the
> > 	system proceeds.  Additional calls would be spinning with
> > 	irqs -enabled- on the lock, avoiding deadlock.  Kind of
> > 	defeats the purpose of your list, though...
> 
> That is what we used to do, that will obviously work. But defeats most
> of the purpose, unfortunately :-)
> 
> > 2.	Maintain a global mask of current targets of smp_call_function()
> > 	CPUs.  A given CPU may proceed if it is not a current target
> > 	and if none of its target CPUs are already in the mask.
> > 	This mask would be manipulated under a global lock.
> > 
> > 3.	As in #2 above, but use per-CPU counters.  This allows the
> > 	current CPU to proceed if it is not a target, but also allows
> > 	concurrent smp_call_function()s to proceed even if their
> > 	lists of target CPUs overlap.
> > 
> > 4.	#2 or #3, but where CPUs can proceed freely if their allocation
> > 	succeeded.
> > 
> > 5.	If a given CPU is waiting for other CPUs to respond, it polls
> > 	its own list (with irqs disabled), thus breaking the deadlock.
> > 	This means that you cannot call smp_call_function() while holding
> > 	a lock that might be acquired by the called function, but that
> > 	is not a new prohibition -- the only safe way to hold such a
> > 	lock is with irqs disabled, and you are not allowed to call
> > 	the smp_call_function() with irqs disabled in the first place
> > 	(right?).
> > 
> > #5 might actually work...
> 
> Yeah, #5 sounds quite promising. I'll see if I can work up a patch for
> that, or if you feel so inclined, I'll definitely take patches :-)
> 
> The branch is 'generic-ipi' on git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git
> The link is pretty slow, so it's best pull'ed off of Linus base. Or just
> grab the patches from the gitweb interface:
> 
> http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/generic-ipi

And here is an untested patch for getting rid of the fallback element,
and eliminating the "wait" deadlocks.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---

 smp.c |   80 +++++++++++-------------------------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 36d3eca..9df96fa 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(call_function_lock);
 enum {
 	CSD_FLAG_WAIT		= 0x01,
 	CSD_FLAG_ALLOC		= 0x02,
-	CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK	= 0x04,
 };
 
 struct call_function_data {
@@ -33,9 +32,6 @@ struct call_single_queue {
 	spinlock_t lock;
 };
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_function_data, cfd_fallback);
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cfd_fallback_used);
-
 void __cpuinit init_call_single_data(void)
 {
 	int i;
@@ -59,6 +55,7 @@ static void csd_flag_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
 		if (!(data->flags & CSD_FLAG_WAIT))
 			break;
 		cpu_relax();
+		generic_smp_call_function_interrupt();
 	} while (1);
 }
 
@@ -84,48 +81,13 @@ static void generic_exec_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data)
 		csd_flag_wait(data);
 }
 
-/*
- * We need to have a global per-cpu fallback of call_function_data, so
- * we can safely proceed with smp_call_function() if dynamic allocation
- * fails and we cannot fall back to on-stack allocation (if wait == 0).
- */
-static noinline void acquire_cpu_fallback(int cpu)
-{
-	while (test_and_set_bit_lock(0, &per_cpu(cfd_fallback_used, cpu)))
-		cpu_relax();
-}
-
-static noinline void free_cpu_fallback(struct call_single_data *csd)
-{
-	struct call_function_data *data;
-	int cpu;
-
-	data = container_of(csd, struct call_function_data, csd);
-
-	/*
-	 * We could drop this loop by embedding a cpu variable in
-	 * csd, but this should happen so extremely rarely (if ever)
-	 * that this seems like a better idea
-	 */
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		if (&per_cpu(cfd_fallback, cpu) != data)
-			continue;
-
-		clear_bit_unlock(0, &per_cpu(cfd_fallback_used, cpu));
-		break;
-	}
-}
-
 static void rcu_free_call_data(struct rcu_head *head)
 {
 	struct call_function_data *data;
 
 	data = container_of(head, struct call_function_data, rcu_head);
 
-	if (data->csd.flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC)
-		kfree(data);
-	else
-		free_cpu_fallback(&data->csd);
+	kfree(data);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -222,8 +184,6 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
 				data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
 			} else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC)
 				kfree(data);
-			else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK)
-				free_cpu_fallback(data);
 		}
 		/*
 		 * See comment on outer loop
@@ -244,6 +204,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
 int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
 			     int retry, int wait)
 {
+	struct call_single_data d = NULL;
 	unsigned long flags;
 	/* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */
 	int me = get_cpu();
@@ -258,21 +219,14 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
 	} else {
 		struct call_single_data *data;
 
-		if (wait) {
-			struct call_single_data d;
-
-			data = &d;
-			data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
-		} else {
+		if (!wait) {
 			data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC);
 			if (data)
 				data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
-			else {
-				acquire_cpu_fallback(me);
-
-				data = &per_cpu(cfd_fallback, me).csd;
-				data->flags = CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK;
-			}
+		}
+		if (!data) {
+			data = &d;
+			data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
 		}
 
 		data->func = func;
@@ -320,6 +274,7 @@ void __smp_call_function_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data)
 int smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *), void *info,
 			   int wait)
 {
+	struct call_function_data d;
 	struct call_function_data *data;
 	cpumask_t allbutself;
 	unsigned long flags;
@@ -345,21 +300,14 @@ int smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *), void *info,
 		return smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info, 0, wait);
 	}
 
-	if (wait) {
-		struct call_function_data d;
-
-		data = &d;
-		data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
-	} else {
+	if (!wait) {
 		data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC);
 		if (data)
 			data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
-		else {
-			acquire_cpu_fallback(cpu);
-
-			data = &per_cpu(cfd_fallback, cpu);
-			data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK;
-		}
+	}
+	if (!data) {
+		data = &d;
+		data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
 	}
 
 	spin_lock_init(&data->lock);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists