From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
npiggin@suse.de, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
jens.axboe@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:33:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1233243212.4495.102.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901290958170.13065@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:08 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The smp_call_function can be passed a wait parameter telling it to
> wait for all the functions running on other CPUs to complete before
> returning, or to return without waiting. Unfortunately, this is
> currently just a suggestion and not manditory. That is, the
> smp_call_function can decide not to return and wait instead.
>
> The reason for this is because it uses kmalloc to allocate storage
> to send to the called CPU and that CPU will free it when it is done.
> But if we fail to allocate the storage, the stack is used instead.
> This means we must wait for the called CPU to finish before
> continuing.
>
> Unfortunatly, some callers do no abide by this hint and act as if
> the non-wait option is mandatory. The MTRR code for instance will
> deadlock if the smp_call_function is set to wait. This is because
> the smp_call_function will wait for the other CPUs to finish their
> called functions, but those functions are waiting on the caller to
> continue.
>
> This patch changes the generic smp_call_function code to use per cpu
> variables if the allocation of the data fails for a single CPU call. The
> smp_call_function_many will fall back to the smp_call_function_single
> if it fails its alloc. The smp_call_function_single is modified
> to not force the wait state.
>
> Since we now are using a single data per cpu we must synchronize the
> callers to prevent a second caller modifying the data before the
> first called IPI functions complete. To do so, I added a flag to
> the call_single_data called CSD_FLAG_LOCK. When the single CPU is
> called (which can be called when a many call fails an alloc), we
> set the LOCK bit on this per cpu data. When the caller finishes
> it clears the LOCK bit.
>
> The caller must wait till the LOCK bit is cleared before setting
> it. When it is cleared, there is no IPI function using it.
> A spinlock is used to synchronize the setting of the bit between
> callers. Since only one callee can be called at a time, and it
> is the only thing to clear it, the IPI does not need to use
> any locking.
>
> [
> changes for v2:
>
> -- kept kmalloc and only use per cpu if kmalloc fails.
> (Requested by Peter Zijlstra)
>
> -- added per cpu spinlocks
> (Requested by Andrew Morton and Peter Zijlstra)
> ]
>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Looks nice, thanks!
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 5cfa0e5..9bce851 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(call_function_lock);
> enum {
> CSD_FLAG_WAIT = 0x01,
> CSD_FLAG_ALLOC = 0x02,
> + CSD_FLAG_LOCK = 0x04,
> };
>
> struct call_function_data {
> @@ -186,6 +187,9 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_WAIT) {
> smp_wmb();
> data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> + } else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK) {
> + smp_wmb();
> + data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> } else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC)
> kfree(data);
> }
> @@ -196,6 +200,10 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> }
> }
>
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_single_data, csd_data);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, csd_data_lock) =
> + __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(csd_lock);
> +
> /*
> * smp_call_function_single - Run a function on a specific CPU
> * @func: The function to run. This must be fast and non-blocking.
> @@ -224,14 +232,41 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
> func(info);
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> } else if ((unsigned)cpu < nr_cpu_ids && cpu_online(cpu)) {
> - struct call_single_data *data = NULL;
> + struct call_single_data *data;
>
> if (!wait) {
> + /*
> + * We are calling a function on a single CPU
> + * and we are not going to wait for it to finish.
> + * We first try to allocate the data, but if we
> + * fail, we fall back to use a per cpu data to pass
> + * the information to that CPU. Since all callers
> + * of this code will use the same data, we must
> + * synchronize the callers to prevent a new caller
> + * from corrupting the data before the callee
> + * can access it.
> + *
> + * The CSD_FLAG_LOCK is used to let us know when
> + * the IPI handler is done with the data.
> + * The first caller will set it, and the callee
> + * will clear it. The next caller must wait for
> + * it to clear before we set it again. This
> + * will make sure the callee is done with the
> + * data before a new caller will use it.
> + * We use spinlocks to manage the callers.
> + */
> data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (data)
> data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
> - }
> - if (!data) {
> + else {
> + data = &per_cpu(csd_data, cpu);
> + spin_lock(&per_cpu(csd_data_lock, cpu));
> + while (data->flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK)
> + cpu_relax();
> + data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> + spin_unlock(&per_cpu(csd_data_lock, cpu));
> + }
> + } else {
> data = &d;
> data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-29 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-28 16:38 Buggy IPI and MTRR code on low memory Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 16:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 16:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 16:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 17:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 18:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 18:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 18:22 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-01-28 18:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 21:12 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 21:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 22:07 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 22:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 23:20 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 23:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 23:25 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-28 23:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 0:52 ` [PATCH] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 1:30 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 1:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 11:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 13:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 14:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 15:08 ` [PATCH -v2] " Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 15:33 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-01-29 16:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 17:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 17:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 18:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 18:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 18:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 11:23 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:32 ` [PATCH -v3] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 12:38 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 12:55 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:56 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 13:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 13:02 ` [PATCH -v4] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 14:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 16:04 ` [PATCH -v3] " Linus Torvalds
2009-01-30 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-31 8:44 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-29 18:49 ` [PATCH -v2] " Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 1:55 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-29 17:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 17:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 18:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-30 1:11 ` Rusty Russell
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=1233243212.4495.102.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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