linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>,
	Kosaki Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Milton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] smp: add func to IPI cpus based on parameter func
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:30:05 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F2EA785.9070706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOtvUMdqpwOedhZHq6QpUnDyg1FzfK_K3=9HQujjoN9yU3XWnA@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/05/2012 09:16 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 02/05/2012 07:18 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>>
>>> Add the on_each_cpu_cond() function that wraps on_each_cpu_mask()
>>> and calculates the cpumask of cpus to IPI by calling a function supplied
>>> as a parameter in order to determine whether to IPI each specific cpu.
>>>
>>> The function works around allocation failure of cpumask variable in
>>> CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y by itereating over cpus sending an IPI a
>>> time via smp_call_function_single().
>>>
>>> The function is useful since it allows to seperate the specific
>>> code that decided in each case whether to IPI a specific cpu for
>>> a specific request from the common boilerplate code of handling
>>> creating the mask, handling failures etc.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
>>> index d0adb78..da4d034 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/smp.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/smp.h
>>> @@ -109,6 +109,15 @@ void on_each_cpu_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, smp_call_func_t func,
>>>               void *info, bool wait);
>>>
>>>  /*
>>> + * Call a function on each processor for which the supplied function
>>> + * cond_func returns a positive value. This may include the local
>>> + * processor.
>>> + */
>>> +void on_each_cpu_cond(bool (*cond_func)(int cpu, void *info),
>>> +             smp_call_func_t func, void *info, bool wait,
>>> +             gfp_t gfp_flags);
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>>   * Mark the boot cpu "online" so that it can call console drivers in
>>>   * printk() and can access its per-cpu storage.
>>>   */
>>> @@ -153,6 +162,21 @@ static inline int up_smp_call_function(smp_call_func_t func, void *info)
>>>                       local_irq_enable();             \
>>>               }                                       \
>>>       } while (0)
>>> +/*
>>> + * Preemption is disabled here to make sure the
>>> + * cond_func is called under the same condtions in UP
>>> + * and SMP.
>>> + */
>>> +#define on_each_cpu_cond(cond_func, func, info, wait, gfp_flags) \
>>> +     do {                                            \
>>> +             preempt_disable();                      \
>>> +             if (cond_func(0, info)) {               \
>>> +                     local_irq_disable();            \
>>> +                     (func)(info);                   \
>>> +                     local_irq_enable();             \
>>> +             }                                       \
>>> +             preempt_enable();                       \
>>> +     } while (0)
>>>
>>>  static inline void smp_send_reschedule(int cpu) { }
>>>  #define num_booting_cpus()                   1
>>> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
>>> index a081e6c..28cbcc5 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/smp.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>>> @@ -730,3 +730,63 @@ void on_each_cpu_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, smp_call_func_t func,
>>>       put_cpu();
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_each_cpu_mask);
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * on_each_cpu_cond(): Call a function on each processor for which
>>> + * the supplied function cond_func returns true, optionally waiting
>>> + * for all the required CPUs to finish. This may include the local
>>> + * processor.
>>> + * @cond_func:       A callback function that is passed a cpu id and
>>> + *           the the info parameter. The function is called
>>> + *           with preemption disabled. The function should
>>> + *           return a blooean value indicating whether to IPI
>>> + *           the specified CPU.
>>> + * @func:    The function to run on all applicable CPUs.
>>> + *           This must be fast and non-blocking.
>>> + * @info:    An arbitrary pointer to pass to both functions.
>>> + * @wait:    If true, wait (atomically) until function has
>>> + *           completed on other CPUs.
>>> + * @gfp_flags:       GFP flags to use when allocating the cpumask
>>> + *           used internally by the function.
>>> + *
>>> + * The function might sleep if the GFP flags indicates a non
>>> + * atomic allocation is allowed.
>>> + *
>>> + * Preemption is disabled to protect against a hotplug event.
>>
>>
>> Well, disabling preemption protects us only against CPU offline right?
>> (because we use the stop_machine thing during cpu offline).
>>
>> What about CPU online?
>>
>> Just to cross-check my understanding of the code with the existing
>> documentation on CPU hotplug, I looked up Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
>> and this is what I found:
>>
>> "If you merely need to avoid cpus going away, you could also use
>> preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() for those sections....
>> ...The preempt_disable() will work as long as stop_machine_run() is used
>> to take a cpu down."
>>
>> So even this only talks about using preempt_disable() to prevent CPU offline,
>> not CPU online. Or, am I missing something?
> 
> You are not missing anything, this is simply a bad choice of words on my part.
> Thank you for pointing this out.
> 
> I should write:
> 
> " Preemption is disabled to protect against CPU going offline but not online.
>   CPUs going online during the call will not be seen or sent an IPI."
> 


Yeah, that sounds better.

> Protecting against CPU going online during the function is useless
> since they might
> as well go online right after the call is finished, so the caller has
> to take care of it, if they
> cares.
> 


Ah, makes sense, thanks!

Regards,

Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2012-02-05 16:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1328448800-15794-1-git-send-email-gilad@benyossef.com>
2012-02-05 13:44 ` [PATCH v8 1/8] smp: introduce a generic on_each_cpu_mask function Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 15:18   ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-02-05 13:48 ` [PATCH v8 2/8] arm: move arm over to generic on_each_cpu_mask Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 13:48 ` [PATCH v8 3/8] tile: move tile to use " Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 13:48 ` [PATCH v8 4/8] smp: add func to IPI cpus based on parameter func Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 15:36   ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-02-05 15:46     ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 16:00       ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
2012-02-05 16:03         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-02-08  9:30   ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-02-09  0:03     ` Andrew Morton
2012-02-09  8:08       ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-09  8:13         ` Andrew Morton
2012-02-09  9:53           ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 13:48 ` [PATCH v8 5/8] slub: only IPI CPUs that have per cpu obj to flush Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 13:48 ` [PATCH v8 6/8] fs: only send IPI to invalidate LRU BH when needed Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-05 13:48 ` [PATCH v8 7/8] mm: only IPI CPUs to drain local pages if they exist Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012-02-08  9:33   ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-02-09  8:09     ` Gilad Ben-Yossef

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=4F2EA785.9070706@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cmetcalf@tilera.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=gilad@benyossef.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com \
    --cc=levinsasha928@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=miltonm@bga.com \
    --cc=mina86@mina86.com \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).