[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151008170141.GA25537@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:01:41 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/3] stop_machine: change cpu_stop_queue_two_works() to
rely on stopper->enabled
On 10/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> + * We do not want to migrate to inactive CPU. FIXME: move this
> + * into the caller.
> */
> if (!cpu_active(cpu1) || !cpu_active(cpu2)) {
> preempt_enable();
Of course, this comment is indeed wrong, thanks. Please see V2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From 41d6d14e318335212ffac093c09de0b197235b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:22:06 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/3] stop_machine: change cpu_stop_queue_two_works() to rely on stopper->enabled
Change cpu_stop_queue_two_works() to ensure that both CPU's have
stopper->enabled == T or fail otherwise.
This way stop_two_cpus() no longer needs to check cpu_active() to
avoid the deadlock. This patch doesn't remove these checks, we will
do this later.
Note: we need to take both stopper->lock's at the same time, but this
will also help to remove lglock from stop_machine.c, so I hope this
is fine.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
kernel/stop_machine.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
index 688d6b3..91fbb10 100644
--- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
+++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
@@ -219,12 +219,27 @@ static int multi_cpu_stop(void *data)
static int cpu_stop_queue_two_works(int cpu1, struct cpu_stop_work *work1,
int cpu2, struct cpu_stop_work *work2)
{
+ struct cpu_stopper *stopper1 = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_stopper, cpu1);
+ struct cpu_stopper *stopper2 = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_stopper, cpu2);
+ int err;
+
lg_double_lock(&stop_cpus_lock, cpu1, cpu2);
- cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu1, work1);
- cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu2, work2);
+ spin_lock_irq(&stopper1->lock);
+ spin_lock_nested(&stopper2->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
+
+ err = -ENOENT;
+ if (!stopper1->enabled || !stopper2->enabled)
+ goto unlock;
+
+ err = 0;
+ __cpu_stop_queue_work(stopper1, work1);
+ __cpu_stop_queue_work(stopper2, work2);
+unlock:
+ spin_unlock(&stopper2->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&stopper1->lock);
lg_double_unlock(&stop_cpus_lock, cpu1, cpu2);
- return 0;
+ return err;
}
/**
* stop_two_cpus - stops two cpus
@@ -261,12 +276,8 @@ int stop_two_cpus(unsigned int cpu1, unsigned int cpu2, cpu_stop_fn_t fn, void *
set_state(&msdata, MULTI_STOP_PREPARE);
/*
- * If we observe both CPUs active we know _cpu_down() cannot yet have
- * queued its stop_machine works and therefore ours will get executed
- * first. Or its not either one of our CPUs that's getting unplugged,
- * in which case we don't care.
- *
- * This relies on the stopper workqueues to be FIFO.
+ * We do not want to migrate to inactive CPU. FIXME: move this
+ * into migrate_swap_stop() callback.
*/
if (!cpu_active(cpu1) || !cpu_active(cpu2)) {
preempt_enable();
--
1.5.5.1
--
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