[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFD] Freezing of kernel threads
    On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:33:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 May 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
    > > RFC #1: Use get_hot_cpus()- put_hot_cpus() , which follow the
    > > well known refcounting model.
    > Yes. And usign the "preempt count" as a refcount is fairly natural, no?
    > We do already depend on that in many code-paths.
    > It also has the advantage since it's not a *blocking* lock, [...]

    get/put_hot_cpus() was intended to be similar and not same as

    One difference is get_hot_cpus() has to be a blocking lock. It has to block
    when there is a cpu_down/up operation already in progress, otherwise it isn't
    of much help to serialize readers/writers. Note that a cpu_down/up is marked in
    progress *before* the first notifier is sent (CPU_DOWN/UP_PREPARE) and not just
    when changing the cpu_online_map bitmap.

    Because it can be a blocking call, there needs to be associated
    machinery to wake up sleeping readers/writers.

    The other complication get/put_hotcpu() had was dealing with
    write-followed-by-read lock attempt by the *same* thread (whilst doing
    cpu_down/up). IIRC this was triggered by some callback processing in CPU_DEAD

    |- take write lock
    | |- foo() wants a read_lock

    Stupid as it sounds, it was really found to be happening! Gautham, do you
    recall who that foo() was? Somebody in cpufreq I guess ..

    Tackling that requires some state bit in task_struct to educate
    read_lock to be a no-op if write lock is already held by the thread.

    In summary, get/put_hot_cpu() will need to be (slightly) more complex than
    something like get/put_cpu(). Perhaps this complexity was what put off
    Andrew when he suggested the use of freezer (

    > For example, since all users of cpu_online_map should be pure *readers*
    > (apart from a couple of cases that actually bring up a CPU), you can do
    > things like
    > #define cpu_online_map check_cpu_online_map()
    > static inline cpumask_t check_cpu_online_map(void)
    > {
    > WARN_ON(!preempt_safe()); /* or whatever lock we decide on */
    > return __real_cpu_online_map;
    > }

    I remember Rusty had a similar function to check for unsafe references
    to cpu_online_map way back when cpu hotplug was being developed. It will
    be a good idea to reintroduce that back.

    > and it will nicely catch things like that.

    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: 2007-05-14 08:13    [W:0.025 / U:4.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site