From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@austin.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu hotplug fixes for dependent_sleeper and wake_sleeping_dependent
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:25:21 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1094042223.17828.78.camel@bach> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040830132925.GA1531@elte.hu>
On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 23:29, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nathan Lynch <nathanl@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > To recap, offlining a cpu with current bk results in the "Aiee,
> > killing interrupt handler!" panic from do_exit(). This seems to be
> > triggered only with CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_SCHED_SMT both enabled.
> > I believe the problem is that when do_stop() calls schedule(),
> > dependent_sleeper() drops the "offline" cpu's rq->lock and never
> > reacquires it.
> >
> > The following seems to work (tested on ppc64). Is there a better way?
>
> > - if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER))
> > + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER) || cpu_is_offline(this_cpu))
>
> > + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER) || cpu_is_offline(this_cpu))
>
> it would really be nice to do this without any runtime overhead. Rusty?
If the scheduling topology is updated atomically (ie. inside
__cpu_disable), this would not happen; there are patches around to do
this and I think longer term this is the correct fix. However, I
believe a good current fix is to merely ensure that the current cpu is
always set in dependent_sleeper(), something like:L
/*
* The same locking rules and details apply as for
* wake_sleeping_dependent():
*/
spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
cpus_and(sibling_map, sd->span, cpu_online_map);
+ /* Include this CPU, for special case of going us dying */
+ cpu_set(this_cpu, sibling_map);
for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
spin_lock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map);
Not quite free, but very cheap...
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-01 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-30 9:41 [PATCH] cpu hotplug fixes for dependent_sleeper and wake_sleeping_dependent Nathan Lynch
2004-08-30 13:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-01 23:25 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
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=1094042223.17828.78.camel@bach \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nathanl@austin.ibm.com \
/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