Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:47:46 -0400 | From | Don Zickus <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4 v2] nmi: Provide the option to issue an NMI back trace to every cpu but current |
| |
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:41:54PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/21, Don Zickus wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 07:26:49PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 04/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > Looking at https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/4/469... It seems that 2/4 can be > > > > simplified, you can simply remove smp_processor_id() from backtrace_mask > > > > if !include_self and use apic->send_IPI_mask(backtrace_mask). But this is > > > > minor, I won't insist. > > > > > > And in fact, I do not understand why arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() doesn't > > > disable preemption. OK, probably we can simply ignore the race with cpu hotplug. > > > > > > But it seems that your patch makes the things worse. Lets look at, say, > > > numachip_send_IPI_mask_allbutself(). The usage of smp_processor_id() is > > > obviously racy but perhaps we do not care again. But we do not want a warning > > > from debug_smp_processor_id(). > > > > Good point. I forgot that going from all cpus down to allbutself, > > preemption now matters. > > I am not sure it actually matters wrt "show other CPU's traces". If the preemption > is possible then the caller can be preempted even before it sends ipi. > > OTOH I think it does matter anyway, even without your patch, otherwise the usage > of cpu_online_mask is racy and we can hit the "Wait for up to 10 seconds" case.
Hmm, I understand what you are saying now.
> > Btw... > > /* Wait for up to 10 seconds for all CPUs to do the backtrace */ > for (i = 0; i < 10 * 1000; i++) { > if (cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(backtrace_mask))) > break; > mdelay(1); > } > > OK, but perhaps we should clear backtrace_mask if we return due to timeout.
I can look at that.
> > > does disabling preemption help in the cpu > > hotplug case? > > Yes. But I'd suggest to change your patch to use get_cpu() instead of > preempt_disable/smp_processor_id.
ok. Originally I was thinking of the remote hotplug cpu case, which pre-emption won't block. But forgot about the local cpu hotplug case.
> > And I think it would be better to not discuss this off-list, I added lkml. > > Oleg. >
Thanks!
Cheers, Don
| |