lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CPU Hotplug rework
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 08:18:42PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 08:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > There had been some discussion on CPU Hotplug redesign/rework
> > some time ago, but it was buried under a thread with a different
> > subject.
> > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246208/focus=1246404)
> >
> > So I am opening a new thread with an appropriate subject to discuss
> > what needs to be done and how to go about it, as part of the rework.
> >
> > Peter Zijlstra and Paul McKenney had come up with TODO lists for the
> > rework, and here are their extracts from the previous discussion:

Finally getting around to looking at this in more detail...

> Additional things that I would like to add to the list:
>
> 1. Fix issues with CPU Hotplug callback registration. Currently there
> is no totally-race-free way to register callbacks and do setup
> for already online cpus.
>
> I had posted an incomplete patchset some time ago regarding this,
> which gives an idea of the direction I had in mind.
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1258880/focus=15826

Another approach is to have the registration function return the
CPU mask corresponding to the instant at which registration occurred,
perhaps via an additional function argument that points to a
cpumask_var_t that can be NULL if you don't care. Then you can
do setup for the CPUs indicated in the mask.

Or am I missing the race you had in mind? Or is the point to make
sure that the notifiers execute in order?

> 2. There is a mismatch between the code and the documentation around
> the difference between [un/register]_hotcpu_notifier and
> [un/register]_cpu_notifier. And I remember seeing several places in
> the code that uses them inconsistently. Not terribly important, but
> good to fix it up while we are at it.

The following lead me to believe that they were the same:

#define register_hotcpu_notifier(nb) register_cpu_notifier(nb)
#define unregister_hotcpu_notifier(nb) unregister_cpu_notifier(nb)

What am I missing here?

> 3. There was another thread where stuff related to CPU hotplug had been
> discussed. It had exposed some new challenges to CPU hotplug, if we
> were to support asynchronous smp booting.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=48535
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=48542
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=1253241
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1246209/focus=1253267

Good points! ;-)

> 4. Because the current CPU offline code depends on stop_machine(), every
> online CPU must cooperate with the offline event. This means, whenever
> we do a preempt_disable(), it ensures not only that that particular
> CPU won't go offline, but also that *any* CPU cannot go offline. This
> is more like a side-effect of using stop_machine().
>
> So when trying to move over to stop_one_cpu(), we have to carefully audit
> places where preempt_disable() has been used in that manner (ie.,
> preempt_disable used as a light-weight and non-blocking form of
> get_online_cpus()). Because when we move to stop_one_cpu() to do CPU offline,
> a preempt disabled section will prevent only that particular CPU from
> going offline.
>
> I haven't audited preempt_disable() calls yet, but one such use was there
> in brlocks (include/linux/lglock.h) until quite recently.

I was thinking in terms of the offline code path doing a synchronize_sched()
to allow preempt_disable() to retain a reasonable approximation of its
current semantics. This would require a pair of CPU masks, one for code
using CPU-based primitives (e.g., sending IPIs) and another for code
implementing those primitives.

Or is there some situation that makes this approach fail?

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-05 23:47    [W:0.140 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site