[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BBC8A11.3040501@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:35:13 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Shane Wang <shane.wang@...el.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuhotplug: make get_online_cpus() scalability by
using percpu counter
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 04/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> 1) get_online_cpus() must be allowed to be called recursively, so I added
>>> get_online_cpus_nest for every task for new code.
>> Well, iirc one of the goals of
>>
>> cpu-hotplug: replace lock_cpu_hotplug() with get_online_cpus()
>> 86ef5c9a8edd78e6bf92879f32329d89b2d55b5a
>>
>> was avoiding the new members in task_struct. I leave this up to you
>> and Gautham.
Old get_online_cpus() is read-preference, I think the goal of this ability
is allow get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() to be called nested.
But read-preference RWL may cause write side starvation, so I abandon this ability,
and use per-task counter for allowing get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
to be called nested, I think this deal is absolutely worth.
>>
>>
>> Lai, I didn't read this patch carefully yet (and I can't apply it to
>> Linus's tree). But at first glance,
>
> because I tried to apply it without 1/2 ;)
>
>>> void put_online_cpus(void)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>> + if (!--current->get_online_cpus_nest) {
>>> + preempt_disable();
>>> + __get_cpu_var(refcount)--;
>>> + if (cpu_hotplug_task)
>>> + wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug_task);
>> This looks unsafe. In theory nothing protects cpu_hotplug_task from
>> exiting if refcount_sum() becomes zero, this means wake_up_process()
>> can hit the freed/reused/unmapped task_struct. Probably cpu_hotplug_done()
>> needs another synhronize_sched() before return.
>
> Yes, I think this is true, at least in theory.
preempt_disable() prevent cpu_hotplug_task from exiting.
Thanks, 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