linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 2/5] smpboot: Provide infrastructure for percpu hotplug threads

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: <4FD9A176.7080806@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:01:50 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 2/5] smpboot: Provide infrastructure for percpu hotplug
 threads

On 06/13/2012 04:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Provide a generic interface for setting up and tearing down percpu
> threads.
> 
> On registration the threads for already online cpus are created and
> started. On deregistration (modules) the threads are stoppped.
> 
> During hotplug operations the threads are created, started, parked and
> unparked. The datastructure for registration provides a pointer to
> percpu storage space and optional setup, cleanup, park, unpark
> functions. These functions are called when the thread state changes.
> 
> Thread functions should look like the following:
> 
> int thread_fn(void *cookie)
> {
> 	while (!smpboot_thread_check_parking(cookie)) {
> 		do_stuff();
> 	}
> 	return 0;
> }
>


This patchset looks great! But I have some comments below:

 
> Index: tip/kernel/cpu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ tip/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -280,6 +280,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int 
>  				__func__, cpu);
>  		goto out_release;
>  	}
> +	smpboot_park_threads(cpu);
> 


If cpu_down fails further down, don't we want to unpark these threads
as part of error recovery?

>  	err = __stop_machine(take_cpu_down, &tcd_param, cpumask_of(cpu));
>  	if (err) {
> @@ -354,6 +355,10 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned in
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> 
> +	ret = smpboot_create_threads(cpu);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
> +


Here also, we might want to clean up on error right?

>  	ret = __cpu_notify(CPU_UP_PREPARE | mod, hcpu, -1, &nr_calls);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		nr_calls--;
> @@ -370,6 +375,7 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned in
> 
>  	/* Now call notifier in preparation. */
>  	cpu_notify(CPU_ONLINE | mod, hcpu);
> +	smpboot_unpark_threads(cpu);
> 
>  out_notify:
>  	if (ret != 0)



Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/