[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] ARM: Don't use complete() during __cpu_die
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 05:24:08PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/05/15 08:11, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 06:29:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> Works for me, assuming no hidden uses of RCU in the IPI code. ;-)
> > Sigh... I kind'a new it wouldn't be this simple. The gic code which
> > actually raises the IPI takes a raw spinlock, so it's not going to be
> > this simple - there's a small theoretical window where we have taken
> > this lock, written the register to send the IPI, and then dropped the
> > lock - the update to the lock to release it could get lost if the
> > CPU power is quickly cut at that point.
> Hm.. at first glance it would seem like a similar problem exists with
> the completion variable. But it seems that we rely on the call to
> complete() fom the dying CPU to synchronize with wait_for_completion()
> on the killing CPU via the completion's wait.lock.
> void complete(struct completion *x)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> x->done++;
> __wake_up_locked(&x->wait, TASK_NORMAL, 1);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> }
> and
> static inline long __sched
> do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x,
> long (*action)(long), long timeout, int state)
> ...
> spin_unlock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
> timeout = action(timeout);
> spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
> so the power can't really be cut until the killing CPU sees the lock
> released either explicitly via the second cache flush in cpu_die() or
> implicitly via hardware. Maybe we can do the same thing here by using a
> spinlock for synchronization between the IPI handler and the dying CPU?
> So lock/unlock around the IPI sending from the dying CPU and then do a
> lock/unlock on the killing CPU before continuing.
> It would be nice if we didn't have to do anything at all though so
> perhaps we can make it a nop on configs where there isn't a big little
> switcher. Yeah it's some ugly coupling between these two pieces of code,
> but I'm not sure how we can do better.

The default ugly-but-known-to-work approach is to set a variable in
the dying CPU that the surviving CPU periodically polls. If all else
fails and all that.

> > Also, we _do_ need the second cache flush in place to ensure that the
> > unlock is seen to other CPUs.
> >
> > We could work around that by taking and releasing the lock in the IPI
> > processing function... but this is starting to look less attractive
> > as the lock is private to irq-gic.c.
> With Daniel Thompson's NMI fiq patches at least the lock would almost
> always be gone, except for the bL switcher users. Another solution might
> be to put a hotplug lock around the bL switcher code and then skip
> taking the lock in gic_raise_softirq() if the IPI is our special hotplug
> one. Conditional locking is pretty ugly though, so perhaps this isn't
> such a great idea.

Which hotplug lock are you suggesting? We cannot use sleeplocks, because
releasing them can go through the scheduler, which is not legal at this

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-10 03:01    [W:0.255 / U:4.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site