From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline from atomic context Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:08:01 +0530 Message-ID: <50C23789.9000705@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20121207173702.27305.1486.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20121207173759.27305.84316.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20121207175724.GA2821@htj.dyndns.org> <50C23441.7020309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121207183141.GC2821@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e23smtp07.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.140]:33246 "EHLO e23smtp07.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964946Ab2LGSjn (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:39:43 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp07.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 04:34:53 +1000 In-Reply-To: <20121207183141.GC2821@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, namhyung@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, oleg@redhat.com, sbw@mit.edu, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, rjw@sisk.pl, wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/08/2012 12:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Srivatsa. > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 11:54:01PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>> lg_lock doesn't do local nesting and I'm not sure how big a deal that >>> is as I don't know how many should be converted. But if nesting is an >>> absolute necessity, it would be much better to implement generic >>> rwlock variant (say, lg_rwlock) rather than implementing unusual >>> cpuhotplug-specific percpu synchronization construct. >> >> To be honest, at a certain point in time while designing this, I did >> realize that this was getting kinda overly complicated ;-) ... but I >> wanted to see how this would actually work out when finished and get >> some feedback on the same, hence I posted it out. But this also proves >> that we _can_ actually compete with the flexibility of preempt_disable() >> and still be safe with respect to locking, if we really want to ;-) > > I got confused by comparison to preempt_disable() but you're right > that percpu rwlock shouldn't be able to introduce locking dependency > which doesn't exist with non-percpu rwlock. ie. write locking should > be atomic w.r.t. to all readers. Yep! > At the simplest, this can be > implemented by writer backing out all the way if try-locking any CPU > fails and retrying the whole thing. That should be correct but has > the potential of starving the writer. > Exactly! This is what I mentioned yesterday in the link below, and said that its not good because of writer starvation ("too wasteful"): https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/290 > What we need here is a generic percpu-rwlock. I don't know which > exact implementation strategy we should choose. Maybe your switching > to global rwlock is the right solution. But, at any rate, I think it > would be best to implement proper percpu-rwlock and then apply it to > CPU hotplug. It's actually gonna be pretty fitting as > get_online_cpus() is being converted to percpu-rwsem. IIUC, Oleg has > been working on this for a while now. Oleg, what do you think? > Hmm, that sounds good. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat