Re: [PATCH 17/20] SMP: Implement on_cpu()

Avi Kivity
2007-07-10T11:03:02Z

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 7/10/07, Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com> wrote:
>> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/9/07, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> on_each_cpu() was imho always a mistake. It would have been better
>> >> to just fix smp_call_function() directly
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what you mean by "fix" here, but if you're proposing
>> > that we change smp_call_function() semantics to _include_ the
>> > current CPU (and just run the given function locally also along
>> > with the others -- and hence get rid of on_each_cpu) then I'm sorry
>> > but I'll have to *violently* disagree with that. Please remember that
>> > the current CPU _must_ be treated specially in a whole *lot* of
>> > usage scenarios ...
>>
>> I imagine that by "fix" Andi means also updating all callers. Otherwise
>> he would just have said "break".
>
> But that's the point. How do you plan / intend to update
> smp_send_stop()?
>

Well, I don't plan to do anything to smp_call_function(). I imagine you
can add a flag, or compare smp_processor_id() to the cpu that's not
stopping, or use smp_call_function_mask().

> More importantly, what's wrong with it in the first place (to "fix")?

If most use cases want to run a function on all cpus, they shouldn't
need to open code it.

>
>> > On 7/9/07, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>> >> > I think it would be better to fix smp_call_function_single to just
>> >> > handle this case transparently. There aren't that many callers yet
>> >> > because it is
>> >> > fairly new.
>> >
>> > Take the same example here -- let's say we want to send a
>> > "for (;;) ;" kind of function to a specified CPU. Now let's say
>> > by the time we've called smp_call_function_single() on that
>> > target CPU, we're preempted out and then get rescheduled
>> > on the target CPU itself. There, we begin executing the
>> > smp_call_function_single() (as modified by Avi here with your
>> > proposed changed semantics) and notice that we've landed
>> > on the target CPU itself, execute the suicidal function
>> > _locally_ *in current thread* itself, and ... well, I hope you
>> > get the picture.
>>
>> So you disable preemption before calling smp_call_function_single().
>
> Which is what on_cpu() and which is why I like that.
>
> And which is *not* what Andi's proposal (or your later patch
> implementing that proposal) does, and which is why I *don't*
> like that.

It does disable preemption. Look more carefully.

>
>> > So my opinion is to go with the get_cpu() / put_cpu() wrapper
>> > Avi is proposing here and keep smp_call_function{_single}
>> > semantics unchanged. [ Also please remember that for
>> > *correctness*, preemption needs to be disabled by the
>> > _caller_ of smp_call_function{_single} functions, doing so
>> > inside them is insufficient. ]
>>
>> That's not correct. kvm has two places where you can call the new
>> smp_call_function_single() (or on_cpu()) without disabling preemption.
>
> on_cpu() _is_ the wrapper that does the necessary get_cpu()
> (i.e. preemption-disabling wrap over smp_call_function_single).
>
> Obviously a caller of on_cpu() does not need to disable preemption.

Neither does the caller of the new smp_call_function_single(). Look at
the code.

>
>> There are also a couple of existing places that don't need to disable
>> preemption with the new semantics (see mtrr_save_state(), do_cpuid(),
>> _rdmsr_on_cpu(), all in arch/i386 for examples). In fact I think more
>> places can take advantage of the new semantics than not.
>
> I presume you mean these are places where we just specify the CPU
> to execute the function on, and don't really care if by that time we've
> gone over to that CPU itself -- so the new semantics are fine too?
> So these are places where you can use on_cpu(). But why change
> existing semantics of smp_call_function_single is what I can't quite
> understand, when there are perfectly legitimate usage cases where we
> _don't_ want the function to get executed locally.

Most (all?) do. And there's not harm done if they don't. Look at the code.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function