lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 scalable classic RCU implementation
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Assuming that the ordering of processing pending irqs and marking the
> CPU offline in cpu_online_mask can be resolved as noted above, it should
> work fine -- if a CPU's bit is clear, we can safely ignore it. The race
> can be resolved by checking the CPU's bit in force_quiescent_state().
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
Yes, that would work:
Rule 1: after CPU_DEAD, a cpu is gone. The cpu is quiet, rcu callbacks
must be moved to other cpus, ...
Rule 2: if a cpu is not listed in cpu_online_mask, then it can be
considered as outside a read-side critical section.

The problem with rule 2 is that it means someone
[force_quiescent_state()] must poll the cpu_online_mask and look for
changes.
I'd really prefer a notifier. CPU_DYING is nearly the correct thing, it
only has to be moved down 3 lines ;-)
(I want to kill the bitmaps, not add a hierarchical bitmap polling system!)
> It is entirely possible that rcu_try_flip_waitack() and
> rcu_try_flip_waitmb() need to check the AND of rcu_cpu_online_map and
> cpu_online_map. If this really is a problem (and it might well be),
> then the easiest fix is to check for cpu_is_offline(cpu) in both
> rcu_try_flip_waitmb_needed() and rcu_try_flip_waitack_needed(), and
> that in both versions of both functions. Thoughts?
>
I made a mistake, get_online_cpus() stores current, not a cpu number.
Thus the described race it not possible. Perhaps there are other users
that could deadlock.
I don't know enough about the preempt algorithm, thus I can't confirm if
your proposal would work or not.

--
Manfred


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-31 19:47    [W:0.314 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site