From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (e37.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e37.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EF6F2C0082 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:44:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e37.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:33:47 -0600 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692741FF001B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:28:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r5QEXeYq291962 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:33:40 -0600 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r5QEa2hF019283 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:36:04 -0600 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:33:33 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/45] rcu: Use get/put_online_cpus_atomic() to prevent CPU offline Message-ID: <20130626143333.GM3828@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20130625202452.16593.22810.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20130625202755.16593.67819.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20130625220026.GG3828@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51CAF624.6060004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <51CAF624.6060004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: peterz@infradead.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, walken@google.com, mingo@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, rostedt@goodmis.org, namhyung@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, sbw@mit.edu, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:39:40PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 06/26/2013 03:30 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:57:55AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > >> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able > >> to depend on disabling preemption to prevent CPUs from going offline > >> from under us. > >> > >> In RCU code, rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() checks if a CPU is offline, > >> while being protected by a spinlock. Use the get/put_online_cpus_atomic() > >> APIs to prevent CPUs from going offline, while invoking from atomic context. > > > > I am not completely sure that this is needed. Here is a (quite possibly > > flawed) argument for its not being needed: > > > > o rcu_gp_init() holds off CPU-hotplug operations during > > grace-period initialization. Therefore, RCU will avoid > > looking for quiescent states from CPUs that were offline > > (and thus in an extended quiescent state) at the beginning > > of the grace period. > > > > o If force_qs_rnp() is looking for a quiescent state from > > a given CPU, and if it senses that CPU as being offline, > > then even without synchronization we know that the CPU > > was offline some time during the current grace period. > > > > After all, it was online at the beginning of the grace > > period (otherwise, we would not be looking at it at all), > > and our later sampling of its state must have therefore > > happened after the start of the grace period. Given that > > the grace period has not yet ended, it also has to happened > > before the end of the grace period. > > > > o Therefore, we should be able to sample the offline state > > without synchronization. > > > > Thanks a lot for explaining the synchronization design in detail, Paul! > I agree that get/put_online_cpus_atomic() is not necessary here. > > Regarding the debug checks under CONFIG_DEBUG_HOTPLUG_CPU, to avoid > false-positives, I'm thinking of introducing a few _nocheck() variants, > on a case-by-case basis, like cpu_is_offline_nocheck() (useful here in RCU) > and for_each_online_cpu_nocheck() (useful in percpu-counter code, as > pointed out by Tejun Heo). These fine synchronization details are kinda > hard to encapsulate in that debug logic, so we can use the _nocheck() > variants here to avoid getting splats when running with DEBUG_HOTPLUG_CPU > enabled. Good point, and seems like a reasonable approach to me. Thanx, Paul