lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: per cpun+ spin locks coexistence?
Peter Teoh a écrit :
> Thanks for the explanation, much apologies for this newbie discussion.
> But I still find it inexplicable:
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
>
>> A per-cpu variable is basically an array the size of the number of
>> possible CPUs in the system. get_cpu_var() checks what current CPU we
>> are running on and gets the array-element corresponding to this CPU.
>>
>> So, really oversimplified, get_cpu_var(foo) translates to something like
>> foo[smp_processor_id()].
>>
>>
>
> Ok, so calling get_cpu_var() always return the array-element for the
> current CPU, and since by design, only the current CPU can
> modify/write to this array element (this is my assumption - correct?),
> and the other CPU will just read it (using the per_cpu construct).
> So far correct? So why do u still need to spin_lock() to lock other
> CPU from accessing - the other CPU will always just READ it, so just
> go ahead and let them read it. Seemed like it defeats the purpose of
> get_cpu_var()'s design?
>
> But supposed u really want to put a spin_lock(), just to be sure
> nobody is even reading it, or modifying it, so then what is the
> original purpose of get_cpu_var() - is it not to implement something
> that can be parallelized among different CPU, without affecting each
> other, and using no locks?
>
> The dual use of spin_lock+get_cpu_var() confuses me here :-). (not
> the per_cpu(), which I agree is supposed to be callabe from all the
> different CPU, for purpose of enumeration or data collection).
>
>
You are right Peter, that fs/file.c contains some leftover from previous
implementation of defer queue,
that was using a timer.

So we can probably provide a patch that :

- Use spin_lock() & spin_unlock() instead of spin_lock_bh() &
spin_unlock_bh() in free_fdtable_work()
since we dont anymore use a softirq (timer) to reschedule the workqueue.
( this timer was deleted by the following patch :
http://readlist.com/lists/vger.kernel.org/linux-kernel/50/251040.html


But, you cannot avoid use of spin_lock()/spin_unlock() because
schedule_work() makes no garantee that the work will be done by this cpu.

(free_fdtable_work() can be called to flush the fd defer queue of CPU X
on behalf CPU Y, with X != Y .
You then can have a corruption because CPU X is inside
free_fdtable_rcu() and CPU Y is inside free_fdtable_work() )

So both spin_lock() and get_cpu_var() are necessary :

- One to get the precpu data for optimal performance on SMP (but not
mandatory)
- One to protect the data from corruption on SMP.




--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-17 20:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans