lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] resend, cpuset/hotplug fixes
On 09/11, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> I have different concept. cpuset_cpus_allowed() is not called at atomic
> context nor non-preemptable context nor other critical context.
> So it should be allowed to use mutexs. That's what I think.

Well, it is called from non-preemptable context: move_task_off_dead_cpu().
That is why before this patch we had cpuset_cpus_allowed_lock(). And this
imho adds unneeded complications.

And I can't understand why sched_setaffinity() path should take the
global mutex instead of per-cpuset spinlock.

> There is a bug when migration_call() requires a mutex
> before migration has been finished when cpu offline as Oleg described.
>
> Bug this bug is only happened when cpu offline. cpu offline is rare and
> is slowpath. I think we should fix cpu offline and ensure it requires
> the mutex safely.

This is subjective, but I can't agree. I think we should fix cpusets
instead. We should try to avoid the dependencies between different
subsystems as much as possible.

> Oleg's patch moves all dirty things into CPUSET subsystem and makes
> cpuset_cpus_allowed() does not require any mutex and increases CPUSET's
> coupling. I don't feel it's good.

Again, subjective... But I can't understand "increases CPUSET's coupling".

From my pov, this patch cleanups and simplifies the code. This was the
main motivation, the bugfix is just the "side effect". I don't understand
how this subtle cpuset_lock() can make things better. I can't understand
why we need the global lock to calc cpus_allowed.

> > > cpuset_cpus_allowed() is not only used for CPU offline.
> > > >
> > > > sched_setaffinity() also uses it.
> >
> > Sure. And it must take get_online_cpus() to avoid the races with hotplug.
>
> Oleg hasn't answered that
> "is it safe when pdflush() calls cpuset_cpus_allowed()?".

Because I didn't see such a question ;) perhaps I missed it previously...

> A patch may be needed to ensure pdflush() calls cpuset_cpus_allowed() safely.

What is wrong with pdflush()->cpuset_cpus_allowed() ? Why this is not safe?

This

cpuset_cpus_allowed(current, cpus_allowed);
set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpus_allowed);

looks equally racy, with or without the patch. But this is a bit off-topic,
mm/pdflush.c has gone away.

> One other minor thing:
> Oleg's patch may introduce a trouble in PREEEMPT_RT tree, because
> spinlock in RT is also mutex. Likely I'm wrong.

Yes, probably -rt need raw_lock (as you pointed out).

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-11 20:11    [W:0.182 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site