[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 1/3] smpboot: allow excluding cpus from the smpboot threads
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:50:06AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 4/16/2015 11:28 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>+ /* Unpark any threads that were voluntarily parked. */
> >>>+ if (ht->cpumask) {
> >>>+ cpumask_andnot(&tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask, ht->cpumask);
> >>>+ for_each_cpu(cpu, &tmp_mask) {
> >>>+ struct task_struct *tsk = *per_cpu_ptr(ht->store, cpu);
> >>>+ if (tsk)
> >>>+ kthread_unpark(tsk);
> >>>+ }
> >>>+ }
> >Why do you need to do that? smpboot_destroy_threads() doesn't work on parked threads?
> >But kthread_stop() does an explicit unparking.
> Yes, this part left me scratching my head. Experimentally, this was necessary.
> I saw the unpark in kthread_stop() but it didn't make things work properly.
> Currently it looks like parked threads are only in that state while cores are
> being offlined, and then they are killed individually, so it seems likely that
> this particular path hasn't been tested before.

I'm not sure I understand. You mean that kthreads can be parked only when cores they
are affine to are offline?

Also I'm scratching my head around kthread_stop() when called on kthreads that are parked
on offline cores. I don't see how they can wake up and do the kthread->exited completion since
they are only affine to that offline core. But I likely overlooked something.

> >+/* Statically allocated and used under smpboot_threads_lock. */
> >+static struct cpumask tmp_mask;
> >+
> >Better allocate the cpumask on need rather than have it resident on memory.
> >struct cpumask can be large. Plus we need to worry about locking it.
> >
> I was trying to avoid the need to make functions return errors for the
> extremely unlikely case of ENOMEM. No one is going to check that error
> return in practice anyway; programmers are lazy. It seemed easy to
> allocate one mask statically and use it under the lock; even large systems aren't
> likely to burn more than a couple hundred bytes of .bss for this.

Sure, but I guess it's a common practice to allocate temporary cpumasks. I can't
see much "static struct cpumask" around that are used for temporary stuffs.

> But, if you'd prefer using allocation and the error-return model, I can
> certainly change the code to do that.

There is always a caller to return -ENOMEM to ;-)

> --
> Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-16 19:21    [W:0.194 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site