From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/11] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:22:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20080422092230.GW12774@kernel.dk> References: <1208851058-8500-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1208851058-8500-2-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <480DACDD.7040108@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <480DACDD.7040108-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Avi Kivity Cc: linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, npiggin-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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" has > >contributed lots of fixes and suggestions as well. > > > >+int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void > >*info, > >+ int retry, int wait) > >+{ > >+ unsigned long flags; > >+ /* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */ > >+ int me = get_cpu(); > >+ int ret = 0; > >+ > >+ /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */ > >+ WARN_ON(wait && irqs_disabled()); > >+ > >+ if (cpu == me) { > >+ local_irq_save(flags); > >+ func(info); > >+ local_irq_restore(flags); > >+ } else { > >+ struct call_single_data d; > >+ struct call_single_data *data; > >+ > >+ if (!wait) { > >+ data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC); > >+ if (unlikely(!data)) { > >+ ret = -ENOMEM; > >+ goto out; > >+ } > >+ data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC; > >+ } else { > >+ data = &d; > >+ data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > >+ } > >+ > > > > Instead of introducing a rare error case, how about falling back to the > wait case if the allocation fails? > > Of course, if the called function relies on the calling cpu doing > something else, then this fails, but I don't think anybody would do > that? On the other hand, there is at least one use of > smp_call_function_single() with !wait, which doesn't check the error return. Sure, either failling back to waiting, or add a static call_single_data like it exists for smp_call_function(). In reality it'll never happen, so the fallback static structure appeals the most to me. -- Jens Axboe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:4527 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755585AbYDVJWf (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:22:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:22:30 +0200 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/11] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls Message-ID: <20080422092230.GW12774@kernel.dk> References: <1208851058-8500-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1208851058-8500-2-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <480DACDD.7040108@qumranet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <480DACDD.7040108@qumranet.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Avi Kivity Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@suse.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Message-ID: <20080422092230.PnUZbu80KcYQWxSAvItG0b5MhyYrzIXeLY9SrsNc8cE@z> On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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" has > >contributed lots of fixes and suggestions as well. > > > >+int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void > >*info, > >+ int retry, int wait) > >+{ > >+ unsigned long flags; > >+ /* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */ > >+ int me = get_cpu(); > >+ int ret = 0; > >+ > >+ /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */ > >+ WARN_ON(wait && irqs_disabled()); > >+ > >+ if (cpu == me) { > >+ local_irq_save(flags); > >+ func(info); > >+ local_irq_restore(flags); > >+ } else { > >+ struct call_single_data d; > >+ struct call_single_data *data; > >+ > >+ if (!wait) { > >+ data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC); > >+ if (unlikely(!data)) { > >+ ret = -ENOMEM; > >+ goto out; > >+ } > >+ data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC; > >+ } else { > >+ data = &d; > >+ data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > >+ } > >+ > > > > Instead of introducing a rare error case, how about falling back to the > wait case if the allocation fails? > > Of course, if the called function relies on the calling cpu doing > something else, then this fails, but I don't think anybody would do > that? On the other hand, there is at least one use of > smp_call_function_single() with !wait, which doesn't check the error return. Sure, either failling back to waiting, or add a static call_single_data like it exists for smp_call_function(). In reality it'll never happen, so the fallback static structure appeals the most to me. -- Jens Axboe