Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:31:08 +0530 | | From | Dipankar Sarma <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RCU - rcu-cpu-offline-fix [2/3] |
| |
Andrew,
This patch replaces fixes-for-rcu_offline_cpu-rcu_move_batch-268-rc2.patch in -mm tree. Same thing, but I needed to add the tail pointers anyway for the RCU lists. That allows callbacks lists to be added to the tail without iterating, so an optimized version of Nathan's patch. I have sanity tested cpu hotplug on a ppc64 box with this patch.
Thanks Dipankar
This fixes the RCU cpu offline code which was broken by singly-linked RCU changes. Nathan pointed out the problems and submitted a patch for this. This is an optimal fix - no need to iterate through the list of callbacks, just use the tail pointers and attach the list from the dead cpu.
Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@austin.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 ++ kernel/rcupdate.c | 22 +++++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff -puN kernel/rcupdate.c~rcu-cpu-offline-fix kernel/rcupdate.c --- linux-2.6.8-rc2-rcu/kernel/rcupdate.c~rcu-cpu-offline-fix 2004-07-29 16:06:03.000000000 +0530 +++ linux-2.6.8-rc2-rcu-dipankar/kernel/rcupdate.c 2004-07-31 12:25:57.000000000 +0530 @@ -210,17 +210,15 @@ static void rcu_check_quiescent_state(vo * locking requirements, the list it's pulling from has to belong to a cpu * which is dead and hence not processing interrupts. */ -static void rcu_move_batch(struct list_head *list) +static void rcu_move_batch(struct rcu_head *list, struct rcu_head **tail) { - struct list_head *entry; - int cpu = smp_processor_id(); + int cpu; local_irq_disable(); - while (!list_empty(list)) { - entry = list->next; - list_del(entry); - list_add_tail(entry, &RCU_nxtlist(cpu)); - } + cpu = smp_processor_id(); + *RCU_nxttail(cpu) = list; + if (list) + RCU_nxttail(cpu) = tail; local_irq_enable(); } @@ -233,11 +231,10 @@ static void rcu_offline_cpu(int cpu) spin_lock_bh(&rcu_state.mutex); if (rcu_ctrlblk.cur != rcu_ctrlblk.completed) cpu_quiet(cpu); -unlock: spin_unlock_bh(&rcu_state.mutex); - rcu_move_batch(&RCU_curlist(cpu)); - rcu_move_batch(&RCU_nxtlist(cpu)); + rcu_move_batch(RCU_curlist(cpu), RCU_curtail(cpu)); + rcu_move_batch(RCU_nxtlist(cpu), RCU_nxttail(cpu)); tasklet_kill_immediate(&RCU_tasklet(cpu), cpu); } @@ -270,6 +267,7 @@ static void rcu_process_callbacks(unsign !rcu_batch_before(rcu_ctrlblk.completed, RCU_batch(cpu))) { rcu_list = RCU_curlist(cpu); RCU_curlist(cpu) = NULL; + RCU_curtail(cpu) = &RCU_curlist(cpu); } local_irq_disable(); @@ -277,6 +275,7 @@ static void rcu_process_callbacks(unsign int next_pending, seq; RCU_curlist(cpu) = RCU_nxtlist(cpu); + RCU_curtail(cpu) = RCU_nxttail(cpu); RCU_nxtlist(cpu) = NULL; RCU_nxttail(cpu) = &RCU_nxtlist(cpu); local_irq_enable(); @@ -318,6 +317,7 @@ static void __devinit rcu_online_cpu(int { memset(&per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu), 0, sizeof(struct rcu_data)); tasklet_init(&RCU_tasklet(cpu), rcu_process_callbacks, 0UL); + RCU_curtail(cpu) = &RCU_curlist(cpu); RCU_nxttail(cpu) = &RCU_nxtlist(cpu); RCU_quiescbatch(cpu) = rcu_ctrlblk.completed; RCU_qs_pending(cpu) = 0; diff -puN include/linux/rcupdate.h~rcu-cpu-offline-fix include/linux/rcupdate.h --- linux-2.6.8-rc2-rcu/include/linux/rcupdate.h~rcu-cpu-offline-fix 2004-07-29 16:12:51.000000000 +0530 +++ linux-2.6.8-rc2-rcu-dipankar/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2004-07-31 12:25:44.000000000 +0530 @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ struct rcu_data { struct rcu_head *nxtlist; struct rcu_head **nxttail; struct rcu_head *curlist; + struct rcu_head **curtail; }; DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_data); @@ -111,6 +112,7 @@ extern struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_ctrlblk; #define RCU_nxtlist(cpu) (per_cpu(rcu_data, (cpu)).nxtlist) #define RCU_curlist(cpu) (per_cpu(rcu_data, (cpu)).curlist) #define RCU_nxttail(cpu) (per_cpu(rcu_data, (cpu)).nxttail) +#define RCU_curtail(cpu) (per_cpu(rcu_data, (cpu)).curtail) static inline int rcu_pending(int cpu) { _ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |