lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CPU Hotplug rework
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 10:39:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 08:18:42PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On 03/19/2012 08:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > There had been some discussion on CPU Hotplug redesign/rework
> > > some time ago, but it was buried under a thread with a different
> > > subject.
> > > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246208/focus=1246404)
> > >
> > > So I am opening a new thread with an appropriate subject to discuss
> > > what needs to be done and how to go about it, as part of the rework.
> > >
> > > Peter Zijlstra and Paul McKenney had come up with TODO lists for the
> > > rework, and here are their extracts from the previous discussion:
>
> Finally getting around to looking at this in more detail...
>
> > Additional things that I would like to add to the list:
> >
> > 1. Fix issues with CPU Hotplug callback registration. Currently there
> > is no totally-race-free way to register callbacks and do setup
> > for already online cpus.
> >
> > I had posted an incomplete patchset some time ago regarding this,
> > which gives an idea of the direction I had in mind.
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1258880/focus=15826
>
> Another approach is to have the registration function return the
> CPU mask corresponding to the instant at which registration occurred,
> perhaps via an additional function argument that points to a
> cpumask_var_t that can be NULL if you don't care. Then you can
> do setup for the CPUs indicated in the mask.
>
> Or am I missing the race you had in mind? Or is the point to make
> sure that the notifiers execute in order?
>
> > 2. There is a mismatch between the code and the documentation around
> > the difference between [un/register]_hotcpu_notifier and
> > [un/register]_cpu_notifier. And I remember seeing several places in
> > the code that uses them inconsistently. Not terribly important, but
> > good to fix it up while we are at it.
>
> The following lead me to believe that they were the same:
>
> #define register_hotcpu_notifier(nb) register_cpu_notifier(nb)
> #define unregister_hotcpu_notifier(nb) unregister_cpu_notifier(nb)
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> > 3. There was another thread where stuff related to CPU hotplug had been
> > discussed. It had exposed some new challenges to CPU hotplug, if we
> > were to support asynchronous smp booting.
> >
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=48535
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=48542
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=1253241
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=1253267
>
> Good points! ;-)
>
> > 4. Because the current CPU offline code depends on stop_machine(), every
> > online CPU must cooperate with the offline event. This means, whenever
> > we do a preempt_disable(), it ensures not only that that particular
> > CPU won't go offline, but also that *any* CPU cannot go offline. This
> > is more like a side-effect of using stop_machine().
> >
> > So when trying to move over to stop_one_cpu(), we have to carefully audit
> > places where preempt_disable() has been used in that manner (ie.,
> > preempt_disable used as a light-weight and non-blocking form of
> > get_online_cpus()). Because when we move to stop_one_cpu() to do CPU offline,
> > a preempt disabled section will prevent only that particular CPU from
> > going offline.
> >
> > I haven't audited preempt_disable() calls yet, but one such use was there
> > in brlocks (include/linux/lglock.h) until quite recently.
>
> I was thinking in terms of the offline code path doing a synchronize_sched()
> to allow preempt_disable() to retain a reasonable approximation of its
> current semantics. This would require a pair of CPU masks, one for code
> using CPU-based primitives (e.g., sending IPIs) and another for code
> implementing those primitives.
>
> Or is there some situation that makes this approach fail?

Hmmm... I suppose that -rt's use of migrate_disable() needs some other
approach in any case, unless -rt's offlining waits for all pre-existing
migrate_disable() sections to finish.

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-05 23:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site