From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney"
<paulmck-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org,
npiggin-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org,
linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
jeremy-TSDbQ3PG+2Y@public.gmane.org,
mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:37:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080430123717.GC12774@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080430121712.GR11126-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
On Wed, Apr 30 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 01:34:57PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:59:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:21AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > This adds kernel/smp.c which contains helpers for IPI function calls. In
> > > > > addition to supporting the existing smp_call_function() in a more efficient
> > > > > manner, it also adds a more scalable variant called smp_call_function_single()
> > > > > for calling a given function on a single CPU only.
> > > > >
> > > > > The core of this is based on the x86-64 patch from Nick Piggin, lots of
> > > > > changes since then. "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org> has
> > > > > contributed lots of fixes and suggestions as well.
> > > >
> > > > Looks much better, but there still appears to be a potential deadlock
> > > > with a CPU spinning waiting (indirectly) for a grace period to complete.
> > > > Such spinning can prevent the grace period from ever completing.
> > > >
> > > > See "!!!".
> > >
> > > One additional question... Why not handle memory allocation failure
> > > by pretending that the caller to smp_call_function() had specified
> > > "wait"? The callee is in irq context, so cannot block, right?
> >
> > (BTW a lot of thanks for your comments, I've read and understood most of
> > it, I'll reply in due time - perhaps not until next week, I'll be gone
> > from this afternoon and until monday).
> >
> > We cannot always fallback to wait, unfortunately. If irqs are disabled,
> > you could deadlock between two CPUs each waiting for each others IPI
> > ack.
>
> Good point!!!
>
> > So the good question is how to handle the problem. The easiest would be
> > to return ENOMEM and get rid of the fallback, but the fallback deadlocks
> > are so far mostly in the theoretical realm since it PROBABLY would not
> > occur in practice. But still no good enough, so I'm still toying with
> > ideas on how to make it 100% bullet proof.
>
> Here are some (probably totally broken) ideas:
>
> 1. Global lock so that only one smp_call_function() in the
> system proceeds. Additional calls would be spinning with
> irqs -enabled- on the lock, avoiding deadlock. Kind of
> defeats the purpose of your list, though...
That is what we used to do, that will obviously work. But defeats most
of the purpose, unfortunately :-)
> 2. Maintain a global mask of current targets of smp_call_function()
> CPUs. A given CPU may proceed if it is not a current target
> and if none of its target CPUs are already in the mask.
> This mask would be manipulated under a global lock.
>
> 3. As in #2 above, but use per-CPU counters. This allows the
> current CPU to proceed if it is not a target, but also allows
> concurrent smp_call_function()s to proceed even if their
> lists of target CPUs overlap.
>
> 4. #2 or #3, but where CPUs can proceed freely if their allocation
> succeeded.
>
> 5. If a given CPU is waiting for other CPUs to respond, it polls
> its own list (with irqs disabled), thus breaking the deadlock.
> This means that you cannot call smp_call_function() while holding
> a lock that might be acquired by the called function, but that
> is not a new prohibition -- the only safe way to hold such a
> lock is with irqs disabled, and you are not allowed to call
> the smp_call_function() with irqs disabled in the first place
> (right?).
>
> #5 might actually work...
Yeah, #5 sounds quite promising. I'll see if I can work up a patch for
that, or if you feel so inclined, I'll definitely take patches :-)
The branch is 'generic-ipi' on git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git
The link is pretty slow, so it's best pull'ed off of Linus base. Or just
grab the patches from the gitweb interface:
http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/generic-ipi
--
Jens Axboe
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
npiggin@suse.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, jeremy@goop.org,
mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:37:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080430123717.GC12774@kernel.dk> (raw)
Message-ID: <20080430123717.SwnqI_YbKBiouHXEVapmVtTikgz18yOxwxYtlWQ0AyU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080430121712.GR11126@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, Apr 30 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 01:34:57PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:59:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:21AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > This adds kernel/smp.c which contains helpers for IPI function calls. In
> > > > > addition to supporting the existing smp_call_function() in a more efficient
> > > > > manner, it also adds a more scalable variant called smp_call_function_single()
> > > > > for calling a given function on a single CPU only.
> > > > >
> > > > > The core of this is based on the x86-64 patch from Nick Piggin, lots of
> > > > > changes since then. "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com> has
> > > > > contributed lots of fixes and suggestions as well.
> > > >
> > > > Looks much better, but there still appears to be a potential deadlock
> > > > with a CPU spinning waiting (indirectly) for a grace period to complete.
> > > > Such spinning can prevent the grace period from ever completing.
> > > >
> > > > See "!!!".
> > >
> > > One additional question... Why not handle memory allocation failure
> > > by pretending that the caller to smp_call_function() had specified
> > > "wait"? The callee is in irq context, so cannot block, right?
> >
> > (BTW a lot of thanks for your comments, I've read and understood most of
> > it, I'll reply in due time - perhaps not until next week, I'll be gone
> > from this afternoon and until monday).
> >
> > We cannot always fallback to wait, unfortunately. If irqs are disabled,
> > you could deadlock between two CPUs each waiting for each others IPI
> > ack.
>
> Good point!!!
>
> > So the good question is how to handle the problem. The easiest would be
> > to return ENOMEM and get rid of the fallback, but the fallback deadlocks
> > are so far mostly in the theoretical realm since it PROBABLY would not
> > occur in practice. But still no good enough, so I'm still toying with
> > ideas on how to make it 100% bullet proof.
>
> Here are some (probably totally broken) ideas:
>
> 1. Global lock so that only one smp_call_function() in the
> system proceeds. Additional calls would be spinning with
> irqs -enabled- on the lock, avoiding deadlock. Kind of
> defeats the purpose of your list, though...
That is what we used to do, that will obviously work. But defeats most
of the purpose, unfortunately :-)
> 2. Maintain a global mask of current targets of smp_call_function()
> CPUs. A given CPU may proceed if it is not a current target
> and if none of its target CPUs are already in the mask.
> This mask would be manipulated under a global lock.
>
> 3. As in #2 above, but use per-CPU counters. This allows the
> current CPU to proceed if it is not a target, but also allows
> concurrent smp_call_function()s to proceed even if their
> lists of target CPUs overlap.
>
> 4. #2 or #3, but where CPUs can proceed freely if their allocation
> succeeded.
>
> 5. If a given CPU is waiting for other CPUs to respond, it polls
> its own list (with irqs disabled), thus breaking the deadlock.
> This means that you cannot call smp_call_function() while holding
> a lock that might be acquired by the called function, but that
> is not a new prohibition -- the only safe way to hold such a
> lock is with irqs disabled, and you are not allowed to call
> the smp_call_function() with irqs disabled in the first place
> (right?).
>
> #5 might actually work...
Yeah, #5 sounds quite promising. I'll see if I can work up a patch for
that, or if you feel so inclined, I'll definitely take patches :-)
The branch is 'generic-ipi' on git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git
The link is pretty slow, so it's best pull'ed off of Linus base. Or just
grab the patches from the gitweb interface:
http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/generic-ipi
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-30 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-29 7:26 [PATCH 0/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls #3 Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <1209453990-7735-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <1209453990-7735-2-git-send-email-jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-29 13:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-29 13:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <20080429135936.GC12390-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 11:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-30 11:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <20080430112934.GA23203-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 11:34 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-30 11:34 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <20080430113456.GY12774-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 12:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-30 12:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <20080430121712.GR11126-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 12:37 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-04-30 12:37 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <20080430123717.GC12774-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>
2008-05-01 2:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-01 2:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-02 2:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-02 2:12 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-02 12:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-02 12:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-02 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-05-02 14:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-03 2:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-03 5:49 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-03 18:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-04 22:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-05 4:15 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-05 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-07 20:42 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-08 4:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-02 12:50 ` Keith Owens
2008-05-02 13:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-30 22:56 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-30 22:56 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 2/10] x86: convert to generic helpers for " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <1209453990-7735-3-git-send-email-jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-29 20:35 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-29 20:35 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
[not found] ` <481786A5.7010604-TSDbQ3PG+2Y@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 11:35 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-30 11:35 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <20080430113542.GZ12774-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 12:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-30 12:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <20080430122001.GS11126-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 12:31 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-30 12:31 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <20080430123136.GB12774-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>
2008-04-30 14:51 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-30 14:51 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-30 21:39 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-30 21:39 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 3/10] powerpc: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 4/10] ia64: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 5/10] alpha: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 6/10] arm: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 7/10] m32r: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 8/10] mips: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 9/10] parisc: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` [PATCH 10/10] sh: " Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 7:26 ` Jens Axboe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-05-29 8:58 [PATCH 0/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls #4 Jens Axboe
2008-05-29 8:58 ` [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls Jens Axboe
2008-05-30 11:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-06-06 8:44 ` Jens Axboe
2008-06-10 14:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2008-06-10 15:44 ` James Bottomley
2008-06-10 16:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2008-06-10 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-06-10 16:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2008-06-11 3:25 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-11 10:13 ` Catalin Marinas
2008-07-06 17:21 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080430123717.GC12774@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe-qhclzuegtsvqt0dzr+alfa@public.gmane.org \
--cc=jeremy-TSDbQ3PG+2Y@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org \
--cc=npiggin-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org \
--cc=paulmck-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.