On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:33:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > RFC #1: Use get_hot_cpus()- put_hot_cpus() , which follow the
> > well known refcounting model.
>
> Yes. And usign the "preempt count" as a refcount is fairly natural, no?
> We do already depend on that in many code-paths.
>
> It also has the advantage since it's not a *blocking* lock, [...]
get/put_hot_cpus() was intended to be similar and not same as
get/put_cpu().
One difference is get_hot_cpus() has to be a blocking lock. It has to block
when there is a cpu_down/up operation already in progress, otherwise it isn't
of much help to serialize readers/writers. Note that a cpu_down/up is marked in
progress *before* the first notifier is sent (CPU_DOWN/UP_PREPARE) and not just
when changing the cpu_online_map bitmap.
Because it can be a blocking call, there needs to be associated
machinery to wake up sleeping readers/writers.
The other complication get/put_hotcpu() had was dealing with
write-followed-by-read lock attempt by the *same* thread (whilst doing
cpu_down/up). IIRC this was triggered by some callback processing in CPU_DEAD
or CPU_DOWN_PREPARE.
cpu_down()
|- take write lock
|- CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
| |- foo() wants a read_lock
Stupid as it sounds, it was really found to be happening! Gautham, do you
recall who that foo() was? Somebody in cpufreq I guess ..
Tackling that requires some state bit in task_struct to educate
read_lock to be a no-op if write lock is already held by the thread.
In summary, get/put_hot_cpu() will need to be (slightly) more complex than
something like get/put_cpu(). Perhaps this complexity was what put off
Andrew when he suggested the use of freezer (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/1/400)
> For example, since all users of cpu_online_map should be pure *readers*
> (apart from a couple of cases that actually bring up a CPU), you can do
> things like
>
> #define cpu_online_map check_cpu_online_map()
>
> static inline cpumask_t check_cpu_online_map(void)
> {
> WARN_ON(!preempt_safe()); /* or whatever lock we decide on */
> return __real_cpu_online_map;
> }
I remember Rusty had a similar function to check for unsafe references
to cpu_online_map way back when cpu hotplug was being developed. It will
be a good idea to reintroduce that back.
> and it will nicely catch things like that.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
