lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] smp: Allow smp_call_function_single_async() to insert locked csd
    On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:31:28AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
    > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:51:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:58:33PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 09:37:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
    > >
    > > > > > (3) Others:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > *** arch/mips/kernel/process.c:
    > > > > > raise_backtrace[713] smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, csd);
    > > > >
    > > > > per-cpu csd data, seems perfectly fine usage.
    > > >
    > > > I'm not sure whether I get the point, I just feel like it could still
    > > > trigger as long as we do it super fast, before IPI handled,
    > > > disregarding whether it's per-cpu csd or not.
    > >
    > > No, I wasn't paying attention last night. I'm thinking this one might
    > > maybe be in 1). It does the state check using that bitmap.
    >
    > Indeed. Though I'm not very certain to change this one too, since I'm
    > not sure whether that pr_warn is really intended:
    >
    > if (cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, &backtrace_csd_busy)) {
    > pr_warn("Unable to send backtrace IPI to CPU%u - perhaps it hung?\n",
    > cpu);
    > continue;
    > }
    >
    > I mean, that should depend on if it can really hang somehow (or it's
    > the same issue as what we're trying to fix)... If it won't hang, then
    > it should be safe I think, and this pr_warn could be helpless after all.

    Yeah, leave it.

    > > I suspect to be nice for virt. Both CPUID and MSR accesses can trap. but
    > > now I'm confused, because it is mostly WRMSR that traps.
    > >
    > > Anyway, see the commit here: 07cde313b2d2 ("x86/msr: Allow rdmsr_safe_on_cpu() to schedule")
    >
    > Yes that makes sense. Thanks for the pointer.
    >
    > However, then my next confusion is why they can't provide a common
    > solution to the smp code again... I feel like it could be even easier
    > (please see below). I'm not very familiar with smp code yet, but if
    > it works it should benefit all callers imho.

    Ah, so going to sleep on wait_for_completion() is _much_ more expensive
    than a short spin. So it all depends on the expected behaviour of the
    IPI I suppose.

    In general we expect these IPIs to be 'quick'.

    Also, as is, you're allowed to use the smp_call_function*() family with
    preemption disabled, which pretty much precludes using
    wait_for_completion().

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-12-17 21:25    [W:3.039 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site