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 21:33:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F2EA869.2080505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F2EA785.9070706@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 02/05/2012 09:30 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 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!
>
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-05 16:03 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
2012-02-05 16:03 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
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=4F2EA869.2080505@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).