linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuhotplug: make get_online_cpus() scalability by using percpu counter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100409121235.GA5784@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:12:35 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	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

On 04/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 04/07, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Sure, I understand why you added task_struct->get_online_cpus_nest.
>
> > and use per-task counter for allowing get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
> > to be called nested, I think this deal is absolutely worth.
>
> As I said, I am not going to argue. I can't justify this tradeoff.

But, I must admit, I'd like to avoid adding the new member to task_struct.

What do you think about the code below?

I didn't even try to compile it, just to explain what I mean.

In short: we have the per-cpu fast counters, plus the slow counter
which is only used when cpu_hotplug_begin() is in progress.

Oleg.


static DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, cpuhp_fast_ctr);
static struct task_struct *cpuhp_writer;
static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpuhp_slow_lock)
static long cpuhp_slow_ctr;

static bool update_fast_ctr(int inc)
{
	bool success = true;

	preempt_disable();
	if (likely(!cpuhp_writer))
		__get_cpu_var(cpuhp_fast_ctr) += inc;
	else if (cpuhp_writer != current)
		success = false;
	preempt_enable();

	return success;
}

void get_online_cpus(void)
{
	if (likely(update_fast_ctr(+1));
		return;

	mutex_lock(&cpuhp_slow_lock);
	cpuhp_slow_ctr++;
	mutex_unlock(&cpuhp_slow_lock);
}

void put_online_cpus(void)
{
	if (likely(update_fast_ctr(-1));
		return;

	mutex_lock(&cpuhp_slow_lock);
	if (!--cpuhp_slow_ctr && cpuhp_writer)
		wake_up_process(cpuhp_writer);
	mutex_unlock(&cpuhp_slow_lock);
}

static void clear_fast_ctr(void)
{
	long total = 0;
	int cpu;

	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
		total += per_cpu(cpuhp_fast_ctr, cpu);
		per_cpu(cpuhp_fast_ctr, cpu) = 0;
	}

	return total;
}

static void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
{
	cpuhp_writer = current;
	synchronize_sched();

	/* Nobody except us can use can use cpuhp_fast_ctr */

	mutex_lock(&cpuhp_slow_lock);
	cpuhp_slow_ctr += clear_fast_ctr();

	while (cpuhp_slow_ctr) {
		__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
		mutex_unlock(&&cpuhp_slow_lock);
		schedule();
		mutex_lock(&cpuhp_slow_lock);
	}
}

static void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
{
	cpuhp_writer = NULL;
	mutex_unlock(&cpuhp_slow_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/