From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: tj@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, namhyung@kernel.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, sbw@mit.edu,
amit.kucheria@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, rjw@sisk.pl,
wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs for "light" atomic readers to prevent CPU offline
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:44:15 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50BFAB17.3090603@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50BF999C.6030707@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Replaying what Tejun wrote:
>
> Hello, Oleg.
>
>> Replaying what Oleg wrote:
>>> Replacing get_online_cpus() w/ percpu_rwsem is great but this thread
>>> is about replacing preempt_disable with something finer grained and
>>> less heavy on the writer side
>>
>> If only I understood why preempt_disable() is bad ;-)
>>
>> OK, I guess "less heavy on the writer side" is the hint, and in the
>> previous email you mentioned that "stop_machine() itself is extremely
>> heavy".
>>
>> Looks like, you are going to remove stop_machine() from cpu_down ???
>>
>
> Yeah, that's what Srivatsa is trying to do. The problem seems to be
> that cpu up/down is very frequent on certain mobile platforms for
> power management and as currently implemented cpu hotplug is too heavy
> and latency-inducing.
>
>>> The problem seems that we don't have percpu_rwlock yet. It shouldn't
>>> be too difficult to implement, right?
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I am not sure... unless you simply copy-and-paste the lglock code
>> and replace spinlock_t with rwlock_t.
>>
>
> Ah... right, so that's where brlock ended up. So, lglock is the new
> thing and brlock is a wrapper around it.
>
>> We probably want something more efficient, but I bet we can't avoid
>> the barriers on the read side.
>>
>> And somehow we should avoid the livelocks. Say, we can't simply add
>> the per_cpu_reader_counter, _read_lock should spin if the writer is
>> active. But at the same time _read_lock should be recursive.
>>
>
> I think we should just go with lglock. It does involve local atomic
> ops but atomic ops themselves aren't that expensive and it's not like
> we can avoid memory barriers. Also, that's the non-sleeping
> counterpart of percpu_rwsem. If it's not good enough for some reason,
> we should improve it rather than introducing something else.
>
While working on the v2 yesterday, I had actually used rwlocks for
the light readers and atomic ops for the full-readers. (Later I changed
both to rwlocks while posting this v2). Anyway, the atomic ops version
looked something like shown below.
I'll take a look at lglocks and see if that helps in our case.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
---
include/linux/cpu.h | 4 ++
kernel/cpu.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
index c64b6ed..5011c7d 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
@@ -177,6 +177,8 @@ extern void get_online_cpus(void);
extern void put_online_cpus(void);
extern void get_online_cpus_stable_atomic(void);
extern void put_online_cpus_stable_atomic(void);
+extern void get_online_cpus_atomic(void);
+extern void put_online_cpus_atomic(void);
#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri) cpu_notifier(fn, pri)
#define register_hotcpu_notifier(nb) register_cpu_notifier(nb)
#define unregister_hotcpu_notifier(nb) unregister_cpu_notifier(nb)
@@ -202,6 +204,8 @@ static inline void cpu_hotplug_driver_unlock(void)
#define put_online_cpus() do { } while (0)
#define get_online_cpus_stable_atomic() do { } while (0)
#define put_online_cpus_stable_atomic() do { } while (0)
+#define get_online_cpus_atomic() do { } while (0)
+#define put_online_cpus_atomic() do { } while (0)
#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri) do { (void)(fn); } while (0)
/* These aren't inline functions due to a GCC bug. */
#define register_hotcpu_notifier(nb) ({ (void)(nb); 0; })
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index 8c9eecc..76b07f7 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#include <linux/mutex.h>
#include <linux/gfp.h>
#include <linux/suspend.h>
+#include <linux/atomic.h>
#include "smpboot.h"
@@ -104,6 +105,58 @@ void put_online_cpus_stable_atomic(void)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_online_cpus_stable_atomic);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, atomic_reader_refcount);
+
+#define writer_active(v) ((v) < 0)
+#define reader_active(v) ((v) > 0)
+
+/*
+ * Invoked by hotplug reader, to prevent CPUs from going offline.
+ * Increments its per-cpu 'atomic_reader_refcount' to mark itself as being
+ * active.
+ *
+ * If 'atomic_reader_refcount' is negative, it means that a CPU offline
+ * operation is in progress (hotplug writer). Wait for it to complete
+ * and then mark your presence (increment the count) and return.
+ *
+ * You can call this recursively, because it doesn't hold any locks.
+ *
+ * Returns with preemption disabled.
+ */
+void get_online_cpus_atomic(void)
+{
+ int c, old;
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ read_lock(&hotplug_rwlock);
+
+ for (;;) {
+ c = atomic_read(&__get_cpu_var(atomic_reader_refcount));
+ if (unlikely(writer_active(c))) {
+ cpu_relax();
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ old = atomic_cmpxchg(&__get_cpu_var(atomic_reader_refcount),
+ c, c + 1);
+
+ if (likely(old == c))
+ break;
+
+ c = old;
+ }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_online_cpus_atomic);
+
+void put_online_cpus_atomic(void)
+{
+ atomic_dec(&__get_cpu_var(atomic_reader_refcount));
+ smp_mb__after_atomic_dec();
+ read_unlock(&hotplug_rwlock);
+ preempt_enable();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_online_cpus_atomic);
+
static struct {
struct task_struct *active_writer;
struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
@@ -292,6 +345,42 @@ static inline void check_for_tasks(int cpu)
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
}
+/*
+ * Invoked by hotplug writer, in preparation to take a CPU offline.
+ * Decrements the per-cpu 'atomic_reader_refcount' to mark itself as being
+ * active.
+ *
+ * If 'atomic_reader_refcount' is positive, it means that there are active
+ * hotplug readers (those that prevent hot-unplug). Wait for them to complete
+ * and then mark your presence (decrement the count) and return.
+ */
+static void disable_atomic_reader(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ int c, old;
+
+ for (;;) {
+ c = atomic_read(&per_cpu(atomic_reader_refcount, cpu));
+ if (likely(reader_active(c))) {
+ cpu_relax();
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ old = atomic_cmpxchg(&per_cpu(atomic_reader_refcount, cpu),
+ c, c - 1);
+
+ if (likely(old == c))
+ break;
+
+ c = old;
+ }
+}
+
+static void enable_atomic_reader(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ atomic_inc(&per_cpu(atomic_reader_refcount, cpu));
+ smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
+}
+
struct take_cpu_down_param {
unsigned long mod;
void *hcpu;
@@ -302,6 +391,7 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
{
struct take_cpu_down_param *param = _param;
unsigned long flags;
+ unsigned int cpu;
int err;
/*
@@ -317,6 +407,10 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
return err;
}
+ /* Disable the atomic hotplug readers who need full synchronization */
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
+ disable_atomic_reader(cpu);
+
/*
* We have successfully removed the CPU from the cpu_online_mask.
* So release the lock, so that the light-weight atomic readers (who care
@@ -330,6 +424,10 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
cpu_notify(CPU_DYING | param->mod, param->hcpu);
+ /* Enable the atomic hotplug readers who need full synchronization */
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
+ enable_atomic_reader(cpu);
+
local_irq_restore(flags);
return 0;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-05 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-05 18:42 [RFC PATCH v2 00/10][RESEND] CPU hotplug: stop_machine()-free CPU hotplug Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs for "light" atomic readers to prevent CPU offline Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:47 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:51 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:53 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:56 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:59 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 20:14 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
2012-12-06 16:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-06 18:48 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-06 19:17 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-07 21:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-06 19:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-06 19:36 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-06 22:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-07 17:33 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
[not found] ` <20121207200014.GB13238@redhat.com>
2012-12-10 18:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-10 19:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-07 19:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-07 20:25 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-07 20:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-05 19:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-05 19:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/10] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs for "full" " Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 19:01 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 20:31 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 20:57 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-06 4:31 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] CPU hotplug: Convert preprocessor macros to static inline functions Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/10] smp, cpu hotplug: Fix smp_call_function_*() to prevent CPU offline properly Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/10] smp, cpu hotplug: Fix on_each_cpu_*() " Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:44 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/10] sched, cpu hotplug: Use stable online cpus in try_to_wake_up() & select_task_rq() Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:44 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/10] kick_process(), cpu-hotplug: Prevent offlining of target CPU properly Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:44 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] yield_to(), cpu-hotplug: Prevent offlining of other CPUs properly Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:44 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/10] kvm, vmx: Add full atomic synchronization with CPU Hotplug Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 18:45 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/10] cpu: No more __stop_machine() in _cpu_down() Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-12-05 19:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-05 19:12 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
[not found] <20121205131038.17383.55472.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20121205131136.17383.23318.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20121205142316.GI3885@mtj.dyndns.org>
[not found] ` <20121205164640.GA7382@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20121205165356.GL3885@mtj.dyndns.org>
2012-12-05 18:15 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs for "light" atomic readers to prevent CPU offline Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-05 18:27 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-05 18:32 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
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=50BFAB17.3090603@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amit.kucheria@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=sbw@mit.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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.