[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Redesign cpu_hotplug locking.
    On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:42:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:41:16 +0530
    > Dipankar Sarma <> wrote:
    > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:46:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > Yes you do. Please, read _cpu_up(), _cpu_down() and the example in
    > > > workqueue_cpu_callback(). It's really very simple.
    > >
    > > What are you talking about here ?
    > Did you look? workqueue_mutex is used to protect per-cpu workqueue
    > resources. The lock is taken prior to modification of per-cpu resources
    > and is released after their modification. Very very simple.

    I did and there is no lock named workqueue_mutex. workqueue_cpu_callback()
    is farily simple and doesn't have the issues in cpufreq that
    we are talking about (lock_cpu_hotplug() in cpu callback path).

    > > That is the write side. You are
    > > *not* supposed to do lock_cpu_hotplug() in cpu callbacks paths AFAICT.
    > The workqueue code doesn't use lock_cpu_hotplug().

    And that is the right thing to do.

    > > I am talking about readsides here - you read cpu_online_map and
    > > block then reuse the map and make some calls to another subsystem
    > > that may again do a similar read-side cpu_hotplug lock.
    > Two unrelated subsystems which have both independent and interdependent CPU
    > hotplug locking requirements and neither of which can protect per-cpu
    > resources via preempt_disable()? Sounds unlikely and undesirable.

    I would worry about situations where we have to use set_cpus_allowed()
    with cpumasks. IIRC, those weren't trivial to handle and can happen
    due to interaction between unrelated subsystems one using services
    of the other - rtasd -> set_cpus_allowed() for example.

    > > 1. If you are in cpu hotplug callback path, don't take any lock.
    > That rule is wrong. The CPU_UP_PREPARE and CPU_DOWN_PREPARE notification
    > entrypoints are the logical place for a subsystem to lock any per-cpu resources
    > which another thread/cpu might presently be using.

    I meant lock_cpu_hotplug(), not any lock. Of course, susbsystems
    may need to use their own lock there to handle per-cpu data there.

    > > 2. If you are in a non-hotplug path reading cpu_online_map and you don't
    > > block, you just disable preemption and you are safe from hotplug.
    > Sure.
    > > 3. If you are in a non-hotplug path and you use cpu_online_map and
    > > you *really* need to block, you use lock_cpu_hotplug() or
    > > cpu_hotplug_disable whatever it is called.
    > >
    > > Is this too difficult for people to follow ?
    > Apparently. What's happening is that lock_cpu_hotplug() is seen as some
    > amazing thing which will prevent an *event* from occurring.
    > There's an old saying "lock data, not code". What data is being locked
    > here? It's the subsystem's per-cpu resources which we want to lock. We
    > shouldn't consider the lock as being some way of preventing an event from
    > happening.

    That is what I argued for earlier, but I was given some examples
    where they really needed to disable the asynchronous event of
    cpu hotplug - otherwise they would have need to use very complex
    multi-layer locking.

    > > > > seem to have just got lazy with lock_cpu_hotplug().
    > > >
    > > > That's because lock_cpu_hotplug() purports to be some magical thing which
    > > > makes all your troubles go away.
    > >
    > > No it doesn't. Perhaps we should just document the rules better
    > > and put some static checks for people to get it right.
    > Yes, we could probably fix cpufreq using the existing lock_cpu_hotplug().
    > But we have a quite large amount of racy-wrt-cpu-hotplug code in the kernel
    > and although a lot of it can be fixed with preempt_disable(), it's possible
    > that we'll get into scalability problems.
    > If we do have scalability problems, they can be fixed on a per-subsystem
    > basis: the affected subsystem can use per-cpu locking of its per-cpu data
    > within its CPU_UP_PREPARE and CPU_DOWN_PREPARE handlers. That's a local,
    > contained issue, and addressing it this way is better than inventing (and
    > debugging) some fancy new lock type.

    I would suggest an audit of lock_cpu_hotlpug() users to start with.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-27 13:09    [W:0.026 / U:6.704 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site