Date:	Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:56:12 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu_barrier VS cpu_hotplug: Ensure callbacks in dead
 cpu are migrated to online cpu

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 10:58:43AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 06:54:38PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>> [RFC]
>>>> I don't like this patch, but I thought for some days and I can't
>>>> thought out a better one.
>>>>
>>>> I'm very hope rcu_barrier() can be called anywhere(any sleepable context).
>>>> But get_online_cpus() is a very large lock, it limits rcu_barrier().
>>>>
>>>> We can avoid get_online_cpus() easily for rcupreempt by using a new rcu_barrier:
>>>> void rcu_barrier(void)
>>>> {
>>>> 	for each rcu_data {
>>>> 		lock rcu_data;
>>>> 		if rcu_data is not empty, queue a callback for rcu_barrier;
>>>> 		unlock rcu_data;
>>>> 	}
>>>> }
>>>> But we cannot use this algorithm for rcuclassic and rcutree,
>>>> rcu_data in rcuclassic and rcutree have not a spinlock for queuing callback.
>>>>
>>>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
>>>>
>>>> cpu hotplug may be happened asynchronously, some rcu callbacks are maybe
>>>> still in dead cpu, rcu_barrier() also needs to wait for these rcu callbacks
>>>> to complete, so we must ensure callbacks in dead cpu are migrated to
>>>> online cpu.
>>> Hmmm...  I thought that on_each_cpu() took care of interlocking with
>>> CPU hotplug via smp_call_function().  During a CPU-hotplug operation,
>>> the RCU callbacks do get migrated from the CPU going offline.  Are you
>>> seeing a sequence of events that finds a hole in this approach?
>>>
>>> Now, if a CPU were to go offline in the middle of smp_call_function()
>>> there could be trouble, but I was under the impression that the
>>> preempt_disable() in on_each_cpu() prevented this from happening.
>>>
>>> So, please tell me more!
>>>
>> preempt_disable() ensure online cpu is still online until preempt_enable(),
>> but preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() can't ensure rcu callbacks migrated.
>>
>>
>> rcu_barrier()			|	_cpu_down()
>> 				|		__cpu_die() (cpu D is dead)
>> 	........................|............................
>> 	on_each_cpu()		|
>> 	........................|...........................
>> 	wait_for_completion()	|		rcu_offline_cpu() (move cpu D's
>> 				|			rcu callbacks to A,B,or C)
>>
>>
>> on_each_cpu() does not queue rcu_barrier_callback to cpu D(it's dead).
>> So rcu_barrier() will not wait for callbacks which are original at cpu D.
>>
>> We need ensure callbacks in dead cpu are migrated to online cpu before
>> we call on_each_cpu().
> 
> Good catch!!!  I did indeed miss that possibility.  :-/
> 
> Hmmmm...  rcu_barrier() already acquires a global mutex, and is an
> infrequent operation, so I am not all that worried about the scalability.

I do not worry about the scalability either.
When we use get_online_cpus(), rcu_barrier() can not be called anywhere
(any sleepable context), this is what I worry about.

Most locks in kernel are locked after cpu_hotplug.lock,
if a path has required one of these lock, it cannot call get_online_cpus().
(to avoid ABBA deadlock)
So, if we use get_online_cpus() in rcu_barrier(), we cannot use rcu_barrier()
in most area in kernel.

> 
> But I agree that there should be a better way to do this.  One approach
> might be to the dying CPU enqueue the rcu_barrier() callback on its
> own list when it goes offline, during the stop_machine() time period.
> This enqueuing operation would require some care -- it would be necessary
> to check to see if the callback was already on the list, for example,
> as well as to properly adjust the rcu_barrier_completion() state.
> 
> Of course, it would also be necessary to handle the case where an
> rcu_barrier() callback was enqueued when there was no rcu_barrier()
> in flight, preferably by preventing this from happening.
> 
> An entirely different approach would be to steal a trick from CPU
> designers, and use a count of the number of rcu_barrier() calls (this
> counter could be a single bit).  Have a per-CPU counter of the number
> of callbacks outstanding for each counter value.  Then rcu_barrier()
> simply increments the rcu_barrier() counter, and waits until the
> number of outstanding callbacks corresponding to the old value drops
> to zero.  This would get rid of the need for rcu_barrier() to enqueue
> callbacks, preventing the scenario above from arising in the first
> place.
> 

Will you implement it with one of better ways?

Lai
--
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