lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: + generic-ipi-fix-the-race-between-generic_smp_call_function_-and-hotplug_cfd.patch added to -mm tree


    Suresh Siddha wrote:
    > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 00:22 -0700, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
    >> Suresh Siddha wrote:
    >>
    >>>> CPU A call smp_call_function_many(wait=0) that want CPU B to call
    >>>> a specific function, after smp_call_function_many() return, we let
    >>>> CPU A offline immediately. Unfortunately, if CPU B receives this
    >>>> IPI interrupt after CPU A down, it will crash like above description.
    >>> How can cpu B receive the IPI interrupt after cpu A is down?
    >>>
    >>> As part of the cpu A going down, we first do the stop machine. i.e.,
    >>> schedule the stop machine worker threads on each cpu. So, by the time
    >>> all the worker threads on all the cpu's get scheduled and synchronized,
    >>> ipi on B should get delivered.
    >>>
    >> Actually, those two examples have the same reason, that is how long
    >> the destination CPU will receive the IPI interruption?
    >>
    >> If the stop machine threads can schedule in CPU B during the IPI
    >> interruption delivering, It will occur those issue.
    >>
    >> I understand what you say but let me confuse is how we ensure it? The IPI
    >> interruption is delivered over the APIC bus, It need several CPU instruction
    >> cycle I guess, I also have read the spec of Intel 64 and IA-32, but not find
    >> the answer, could you point out for me?
    >
    > Xiao, There is quite a bit of time between the time a particular cpu
    > sends a smp call function IPI (with wait == 0) and the time that cpu
    > starts running the stop machine thread and the whole system proceeds
    > with stop machine. With in this time, typically the smp call function
    > destination will receive the ipi interrupt. But theoretically the
    > problem you explain might happen.
    >

    Yeah, though this case is very infrequent, but we can't avoid it.

    >>From P4 onwards, interrupts are delivered over system bus and with NHM
    > it is QPI. Also, the mechanism of scheduling the stop machine thread on
    > a particular cpu involves resched IPI etc.
    >
    > Nevertheless, Have you seen a real hang or system crash due to this? If
    > so, on what platform?
    >
    > Ideally, for xapic based platform, clear status of sender APIC ICR's
    > delivery status indicates that the interrupt is registered at the
    > receiver. for x2apic based platform, sending another interrupt will
    > ensure that the previous interrupt was delivered.
    >
    > If you have indeed seen a crash related to this, can you review and give
    > the appended patch a try and see if it fixes the issue? If you agree
    > with the fix, then I will send the patch with a detailed change log etc.
    >

    I not seen this crash, just afraid it's unsafe while I review the code,
    I try to generate this crash, but as you know, the race point is hard
    to control.

    > Your current fix is not clean and not complete in my opinion (as calling
    > interrupt handlers manually and not doing the callbacks etc might cause
    > other side affects). Thanks.

    It is not the last version and doing the callbacks in another patch,
    see below URL please:
    http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=124900028228350&w=2

    I think we do better handle this in CPU down path in kernel/smp.c, It's very
    safe and let people easy to understand.

    > ---
    >
    > diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
    > index 9e3d8af..69ec2a9 100644
    > --- a/include/linux/smp.h
    > +++ b/include/linux/smp.h
    > @@ -93,8 +93,9 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void);
    > void generic_smp_call_function_interrupt(void);
    > void ipi_call_lock(void);
    > void ipi_call_unlock(void);
    > void ipi_call_lock_irq(void);
    > void ipi_call_unlock_irq(void);
    > +void quiesce_smp_call_functions(void);
    > #endif
    >
    > /*
    > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
    > index 8e21850..d13a888 100644
    > --- a/kernel/smp.c
    > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
    > @@ -479,6 +479,27 @@ int smp_call_function(void (*func)(void *), void *info, int wait)
    > }
    > EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_call_function);
    >
    > +void quiesce_smp_call_functions(void)
    > +{
    > + struct call_single_queue *q = &__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue);
    > + bool empty;
    > + unsigned long flags;
    > +
    > + do {
    > + cpu_relax();
    > + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
    > + empty = list_empty(&q->list);
    > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
    > + } while (!empty);
    > +
    > + do {
    > + cpu_relax();
    > + spin_lock_irqsave(&call_function.lock, flags);
    > + empty = list_empty(&call_function.queue);
    > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&call_function.lock, flags);
    > + } while (!empty);
    > +}
    > +

    Why we need waiting CPU to handle this? It make no sense because the CPU is dying,
    we can simple ignore the IPI request.

    > void ipi_call_lock(void)
    > {
    > spin_lock(&call_function.lock);
    > diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
    > index 912823e..dd2d90f 100644
    > --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
    > +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
    > @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ static void stop_cpu(struct work_struct *unused)
    > curstate = state;
    > switch (curstate) {
    > case STOPMACHINE_DISABLE_IRQ:
    > +#ifdef CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS
    > + quiesce_smp_call_functions();
    > +#endif

    It seems ugly, we can define a noop function if CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS is not
    defined.

    Another problem is that all CPU must call quiesce_smp_call_functions() here, but only
    dying CPU need do it.

    > local_irq_disable();
    > hard_irq_disable();

    It will cause another race, if CPU A send a IPI interruption after CPU B call
    quiesce_smp_call_functions() and disable IRQ, it will case the same problem.
    (in this time, CPU B is enter stop machine, but CPU A is not)

    Thanks,
    Xiao


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-15 04:07    [W:0.054 / U:30.928 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site