From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline from atomic context Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:20:00 +0530 Message-ID: <50D879A8.5040407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20121212184849.GA26784@redhat.com> <50C8D739.6030903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50C9F38F.3020005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50D0CCB3.10105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121219163900.GA18516@redhat.com> <50D2047A.1040606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121219191436.GA25829@redhat.com> <50D21A5F.4040604@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121220134203.GB10813@redhat.com> <50D61561.7090805@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121223164242.GA9979@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e28smtp08.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.8]:40241 "EHLO e28smtp08.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752597Ab2LXPvl (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:51:41 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp08.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:20:38 +0530 In-Reply-To: <20121223164242.GA9979@redhat.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Oleg Nesterov 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, tj@kernel.org, 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 12/23/2012 10:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 12/23, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> >> On 12/20/2012 07:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> >>> We need mb() + rmb(). Plust cli/sti unless this arch has optimized >>> this_cpu_add() like x86 (as you pointed out). >>> >> >> Hey, IIUC, we actually don't need mb() in the reader!! Just an rmb() will do. > > Well. I don't think so. But when it comes to the barriers I am never sure > until Paul confirms my understanding ;) > >> #define reader_nested_percpu() \ >> (__this_cpu_read(reader_percpu_refcnt) & READER_REFCNT_MASK) >> >> #define writer_active() \ >> (__this_cpu_read(writer_signal)) >> >> >> #define READER_PRESENT (1UL << 16) >> #define READER_REFCNT_MASK (READER_PRESENT - 1) >> >> void get_online_cpus_atomic(void) >> { >> preempt_disable(); >> >> /* >> * First and foremost, make your presence known to the writer. >> */ >> this_cpu_add(reader_percpu_refcnt, READER_PRESENT); >> >> /* >> * If we are already using per-cpu refcounts, it is not safe to switch >> * the synchronization scheme. So continue using the refcounts. >> */ >> if (reader_nested_percpu()) { >> this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt); >> } else { >> smp_rmb(); >> if (unlikely(writer_active())) { >> ... //take hotplug_rwlock >> } >> } >> >> ... >> >> /* Prevent reordering of any subsequent reads of cpu_online_mask. */ >> smp_rmb(); >> } >> >> The smp_rmb() before writer_active() ensures that LOAD(writer_signal) follows >> LOAD(reader_percpu_refcnt) (at the 'if' condition). And in turn, that load is >> automatically going to follow the STORE(reader_percpu_refcnt) > > But why this STORE should be visible on another CPU before we LOAD(writer_signal)? > > Lets discuss the simple and artificial example. Suppose we have > > int X, Y; > > int func(void) > { > X = 1; // suppose that nobody else can change it > mb(); > return Y; > } > > Now you are saying that we can change it and avoid the costly mb(): > > int func(void) > { > X = 1; > > if (X != 1) > BUG(); > > rmb(); > return Y; > } > > I doubt. rmb() can only guarantee that the preceding LOAD's should be > completed. Without mb() it is possible that this CPU won't write X to > memory at all. > Oh, ok :-( Thanks for correcting me and for the detailed explanation! For a moment, I really thought we had it solved at last! ;-( Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat