[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/51] CPU hotplug: Provide lockless versions of callback registration functions
On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 09:27 +0000, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/11/2014 06:56 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 03:34 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > :
> [...]
> >>
> >> Also, since cpu_maps_update_begin/done() is like a super-set of
> >> get/put_online_cpus(), the former naturally protects the critical sections
> >> from concurrent hotplug operations.
> >
> > get/put_online_cpus() is a reader-lock and concurrent executions are
> > allowed among the readers. They won't be serialized until a cpu
> > online/offline operation begins. By replacing this lock with
> > cpu_maps_update_begin/done(), we now serialize all readers. Isn't that
> > too restrictive?
> That's an excellent line of thought! It doesn't really hurt at the moment
> because the for_each_online_cpu() kind of loop that the initcalls of various
> subsystems run (before registering the notifier) are really tiny (typically
> the loop runs for just 1 cpu, the boot-cpu). In other words, this change
> represents a tiny increase in the critical section size; so its effect
> shouldn't be noticeable. (Note that in the old model, register_cpu_notifier()
> already takes the cpu_add_remove_lock, so they will be serialized at that
> point, and this is necessary).
> However, going forward, when we start using more aggressive CPU onlining
> techniques during boot (such as parallel CPU hotplug), the issue you pointed
> out can become a real bottleneck, since for_each_online_cpu() can become
> quite a large loop, and hence explicit (and unnecessary) mutual exclusion
> will start hurting.
> > Can we fix the issue with CPU_POST_DEAD and continue
> > to use get_online_cpus()?
> >
> We don't want to get rid of CPU_POST_DEAD, so unfortunately we can't continue
> to use get_online_cpus(). However, I am thinking of introducing a Reader-Writer
> semaphore for this purpose, so that the registration routines can run in
> parallel most of the time. (Basically, the rw-semaphore is like
> get/put_online_cpus(), except that it protects the full hotplug critical section,
> including the CPU_POST_DEAD stage.)

I agree that introducing a reader-writer semaphore allows concurrent
executions. Adding yet another hotplug lock is a bit unfortunate,

This may be a dumb question, but can't we simply do this way?






 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-11 19:41    [W:0.098 / U:1.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site