Re: [PATCH 1/11] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls

[Jens Axboe <jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 13:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > 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" <Alan.Brunelle-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org> 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.
> > 
> > We don't need any extra statically allocated data, we can just reuse the
> > 'csd' element of the existing call_data_fallback. So that is what I did.
> > Once all archs are converted, we can now change
> > smp_call_function_single() to a void return, as it always succeeds now.
> 
> Introducing this fallback will make any usage from irq disabled context
> deadlock prone.
> 
> I rather like the current interface.

Hmm good point, I'll back that bit out again.

-- 
Jens Axboe