[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130626143333.GM3828@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:33:33 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org, walken@...gle.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, sbw@....edu, fweisbec@...il.com,
zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/45] rcu: Use get/put_online_cpus_atomic() to
prevent CPU offline
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:39:40PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 03:30 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:57:55AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able
> >> to depend on disabling preemption to prevent CPUs from going offline
> >> from under us.
> >>
> >> In RCU code, rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() checks if a CPU is offline,
> >> while being protected by a spinlock. Use the get/put_online_cpus_atomic()
> >> APIs to prevent CPUs from going offline, while invoking from atomic context.
> >
> > I am not completely sure that this is needed. Here is a (quite possibly
> > flawed) argument for its not being needed:
> >
> > o rcu_gp_init() holds off CPU-hotplug operations during
> > grace-period initialization. Therefore, RCU will avoid
> > looking for quiescent states from CPUs that were offline
> > (and thus in an extended quiescent state) at the beginning
> > of the grace period.
> >
> > o If force_qs_rnp() is looking for a quiescent state from
> > a given CPU, and if it senses that CPU as being offline,
> > then even without synchronization we know that the CPU
> > was offline some time during the current grace period.
> >
> > After all, it was online at the beginning of the grace
> > period (otherwise, we would not be looking at it at all),
> > and our later sampling of its state must have therefore
> > happened after the start of the grace period. Given that
> > the grace period has not yet ended, it also has to happened
> > before the end of the grace period.
> >
> > o Therefore, we should be able to sample the offline state
> > without synchronization.
> >
>
> Thanks a lot for explaining the synchronization design in detail, Paul!
> I agree that get/put_online_cpus_atomic() is not necessary here.
>
> Regarding the debug checks under CONFIG_DEBUG_HOTPLUG_CPU, to avoid
> false-positives, I'm thinking of introducing a few _nocheck() variants,
> on a case-by-case basis, like cpu_is_offline_nocheck() (useful here in RCU)
> and for_each_online_cpu_nocheck() (useful in percpu-counter code, as
> pointed out by Tejun Heo). These fine synchronization details are kinda
> hard to encapsulate in that debug logic, so we can use the _nocheck()
> variants here to avoid getting splats when running with DEBUG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> enabled.
Good point, and seems like a reasonable approach to me.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists