[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091121153840.GB12100@Krystal>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:38:40 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com,
rth@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] jump label v3 - x86: Introduce generic jump
patching without stop_machine
* Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@...hat.com) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> * Jason Baron (jbaron@...hat.com) wrote:
>>> Add text_poke_fixup() which takes a fixup address to where a processor
>>> jumps if it hits the modifying address while code modifying.
>>> text_poke_fixup() does following steps for this purpose.
>>>
>>> 1. Setup int3 handler for fixup.
>>> 2. Put a breakpoint (int3) on the first byte of modifying region,
>>> and synchronize code on all CPUs.
>>> 3. Modify other bytes of modifying region, and synchronize code on all CPUs.
>>> 4. Modify the first byte of modifying region, and synchronize code
>>> on all CPUs.
>>> 5. Clear int3 handler.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Masami,
>>
>> I like the approach and the API is clean. I have intersped comments
>> below.
>>
>> Ingo: I raise a question about text_mutex vs on_each_cpu hangs I
>> experienced recently in the message below. Might be worth having a look,
>> I suspect this might have caused the hangs Paul McKenney had with his
>> past TREE RCU callback migration. I think he did take a mutex in the cpu
>> hotplug callbacks and might have used IPIs within that same lock.
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> I guess that the hang might happen as below;
>
> ----
> lock text_mutex
> modify code
> on_each_cpu(do_something)
> cpu-hotplug (down)
> lock cpu-hotplug mutex
> online_cpus is changed
> native_cpu_die()
> ->alternatives_smp_switch(0)
> ->lock text_mutex -> sleep
> (wait for offlined cpu...)
> ----
>
> If this is correct, I think we can fix it as below.
>
> ----
> lock cpu-hotplug mutex
Yes, this is the solution I used in my own immediate values code too.
> lock text_mutex
> modify code
> on_each_cpu(do_something)
> unlock text_mutex
> unlock cpu-hotplug mutex
> cpu-hotplug (down)
> lock cpu-hotplug mutex
> online_cpus is changed
> native_cpu_die()
> ->alternatives_smp_switch(0)
> ->lock text_mutex
> modify code
> unlock text_mutex
> ...
> unlock cpu-hotplug mutex
> ----
> Or,
> ----
> lock text_mutex
> modify code
> unlock text_mutex
> on_each_cpu(do_something)
> cpu-hotplug (down)
> lock cpu-hotplug mutex
> online_cpus is changed
> native_cpu_die()
> ->alternatives_smp_switch(0)
> ->lock text_mutex
> modify code
> unlock text_mutex
> ...
> unlock cpu-hotplug mutex
> ----
> The latter needs another mutex for int3 handler and
> frequently mutex_lock/unlock in this patch.
>
> Hmm?
The simplest solution seems to be the best one IMHO. But have you been
able to reproduce the lockup ?
Mathieu
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu
>
> Software Engineer
> Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
> Software Solutions Division
>
> e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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