[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52FA77EA.7050105@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:50:10 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
CC: ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"walken@...gle.com" <walken@...gle.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/51] CPU hotplug: Provide lockless versions of callback
registration functions
On 02/11/2014 11:05 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 22:48 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:33:56AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that introducing a reader-writer semaphore allows concurrent
>>> executions. Adding yet another hotplug lock is a bit unfortunate,
>>> though.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with this last part. We already have enough locks for
>> cpu-hotplug. Another one sounds one too many!!
>>
>>
>>> This may be a dumb question, but can't we simply do this way?
>>>
>>> get_online_cpus();
>>>
>>> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>>> init_cpu(cpu);
>>>
>>> put_online_cpus();
>>>
>> -------- Someone chooses to hotplug a cpu here ------
>> -------- But this subsystem might miss out on knowing
>> about it since it hasn't registered its
>> notifier yet!
>>
>>> register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);
>
>
> How about this? foo_cpu_notifier returns NOP when foo_notifier_ready is
> false.
>
> register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);
>
> get_online_cpus();
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> init_cpu(cpu);
>
> foo_notifier_ready = true;
>
> put_online_cpus();
>
Nah, that looks a lot like some quick-n-dirty hack ;-(
It would also amount to burdening the various subsystems to add weird-looking
pieces of code such as this in their callbacks:
if (!foo_notifier_ready)
return NOTIFY_OK;
This only makes it all the more evident that the callback registration APIs
exposed by the CPU hotplug core is poorly designed.
What we need instead, is an elegant, well-defined and easy-to-use set of
interfaces/APIs exposed by the core CPU hotplug code to the various
subsystems. I don't think we should worry so much about the fact that
we can't use the familiar get/put_online_cpus() in this type of callback
registration scenario. We can introduce a sane set of APIs that work
well in such situations and use them consistently.
For example, something like the code snippet shown below looks pretty
neat to me:
cpu_notifier_register_begin();
for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
init_cpu(cpu);
register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);
cpu_notifier_register_done();
What do you think?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists