All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	npiggin@suse.de, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
	jens.axboe@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:17:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090129161712.GC28984@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1233243212.4495.102.camel@laptop>


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:08 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > The smp_call_function can be passed a wait parameter telling it to
> > wait for all the functions running on other CPUs to complete before
> > returning, or to return without waiting. Unfortunately, this is
> > currently just a suggestion and not manditory. That is, the
> > smp_call_function can decide not to return and wait instead.
> > 
> > The reason for this is because it uses kmalloc to allocate storage
> > to send to the called CPU and that CPU will free it when it is done.
> > But if we fail to allocate the storage, the stack is used instead.
> > This means we must wait for the called CPU to finish before
> > continuing.
> > 
> > Unfortunatly, some callers do no abide by this hint and act as if
> > the non-wait option is mandatory. The MTRR code for instance will
> > deadlock if the smp_call_function is set to wait. This is because
> > the smp_call_function will wait for the other CPUs to finish their
> > called functions, but those functions are waiting on the caller to
> > continue.
> > 
> > This patch changes the generic smp_call_function code to use per cpu
> > variables if the allocation of the data fails for a single CPU call. The
> > smp_call_function_many will fall back to the smp_call_function_single
> > if it fails its alloc. The smp_call_function_single is modified
> > to not force the wait state.
> > 
> > Since we now are using a single data per cpu we must synchronize the
> > callers to prevent a second caller modifying the data before the
> > first called IPI functions complete. To do so, I added a flag to
> > the call_single_data called CSD_FLAG_LOCK. When the single CPU is
> > called (which can be called when a many call fails an alloc), we
> > set the LOCK bit on this per cpu data. When the caller finishes
> > it clears the LOCK bit.
> > 
> > The caller must wait till the LOCK bit is cleared before setting
> > it. When it is cleared, there is no IPI function using it.
> > A spinlock is used to synchronize the setting of the bit between
> > callers. Since only one callee can be called at a time, and it
> > is the only thing to clear it, the IPI does not need to use
> > any locking.
> > 
> >  [
> >    changes for v2:
> > 
> >    -- kept kmalloc and only use per cpu if kmalloc fails.
> >           (Requested by Peter Zijlstra)
> > 
> >    -- added per cpu spinlocks
> >           (Requested by Andrew Morton and Peter Zijlstra)
> >  ]
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
> 
> Looks nice, thanks!
> 
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>

started testing it in tip/core/urgent, thanks guys!

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-29 16:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-28 16:38 Buggy IPI and MTRR code on low memory Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 16:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 16:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 16:56   ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 17:00     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 17:24   ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 18:20     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 18:52       ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 18:22     ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-01-28 18:34       ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 21:12 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 21:13   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 21:23     ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 22:07       ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 22:47         ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 23:20           ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 23:50             ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 23:25 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-28 23:41   ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29  0:52   ` [PATCH] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29  1:30     ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29  1:56       ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29  8:49       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 11:13         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 11:41           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 13:42             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 14:07             ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 15:08         ` [PATCH -v2] " Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 15:33           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 16:17             ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-01-29 17:21           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 17:44             ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 17:50               ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:08               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 18:11                 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:23                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 18:31                   ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:39                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 18:44                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 11:23                       ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:32                         ` [PATCH -v3] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 12:38                           ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:48                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 12:55                               ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:56                                 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 13:00                                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 13:02                           ` [PATCH -v4] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 14:51                             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 16:04                           ` [PATCH -v3] " Linus Torvalds
2009-01-30 16:16                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-31  8:44                               ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-29 18:49                 ` [PATCH -v2] " Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30  1:55                 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-29 17:47             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 17:55               ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 18:08                 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-30  1:11           ` Rusty Russell

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=20090129161712.GC28984@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.