All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Move the CPU_DYING notifiers
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:17:21 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080831191721.GH7015@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200808311809.m7VI9whf014532@mail.q-ag.de>

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 07:58:49PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> When a cpu is taken offline, the CPU_DYING notifiers are called on the
> dying cpu. According to <linux/notifiers.h>, the cpu should be "not
> running any task, not handling interrupts, soon dead".
> 
> For the current implementation, this is not true:
> - __cpu_disable can fail. If it fails, then the cpu will remain alive
>   and happy.
> - At least on x86, __cpu_disable() briefly enables the local interrupts
>   to handle any outstanding interrupts.
> 
> What about moving CPU_DYING down a few lines, behind the __cpu_disable()
> line?
> There are only two CPU_DYING handlers in the kernel right now: one in
> kvm, one in the scheduler. Both should work with the patch applied
> [and: I'm not sure if either one handles a failing __cpu_disable()]
> 
> The patch survives simple offlining a cpu. kvm untested due to lack
> of a test setup.

Several architectures re-enable interrupts in __cpu_disable() or in
functions called from __cpu_disable(), which happens after CPU_DYING,
if I understand correctly.  :-(

							Thanx, Paul

> Signed-Off-By: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
> ---
>  kernel/cpu.c |    5 +++--
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index e202a68..5b7c88f 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -199,13 +199,14 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
>  	struct take_cpu_down_param *param = _param;
>  	int err;
> 
> -	raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DYING | param->mod,
> -				param->hcpu);
>  	/* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */
>  	err = __cpu_disable();
>  	if (err < 0)
>  		return err;
> 
> +	raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DYING | param->mod,
> +				param->hcpu);
> +
>  	/* Force idle task to run as soon as we yield: it should
>  	   immediately notice cpu is offline and die quickly. */
>  	sched_idle_next();
> -- 
> 1.5.5.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2008-08-31 19:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-31 17:58 [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Move the CPU_DYING notifiers Manfred Spraul
2008-08-31 19:17 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2008-08-31 19:23   ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-06 16:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-06 17:08   ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-06 17:13     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-13  6:36 ` Avi Kivity

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=20080831191721.GH7015@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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.