From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
Rusty Russel <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] Replace per-subsystem mutexes with get_online_cpus
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:39:17 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071021113917.GA80@tv-sign.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071016103637.GC16570@in.ibm.com>
On 10/16, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> This patch converts the known per-subsystem cpu_hotplug mutexes to
> get_online_cpus put_online_cpus.
> It also eliminates the CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE and CPU_LOCK_RELEASE hotplug
> notification events.
Personally, I like the changes in workqueue.c very much, a couple of
minor nits below.
> --- linux-2.6.23.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ linux-2.6.23/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -592,8 +592,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule_delayed_work_on);
> * Returns zero on success.
> * Returns -ve errno on failure.
> *
> - * Appears to be racy against CPU hotplug.
> - *
see below,
> * schedule_on_each_cpu() is very slow.
> */
> int schedule_on_each_cpu(work_func_t func)
> @@ -605,7 +603,7 @@ int schedule_on_each_cpu(work_func_t fun
> if (!works)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - preempt_disable(); /* CPU hotplug */
> + get_online_cpus(); /* CPU hotplug */
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> struct work_struct *work = per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu);
>
> @@ -613,7 +611,7 @@ int schedule_on_each_cpu(work_func_t fun
> set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, work_data_bits(work));
> __queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(keventd_wq->cpu_wq, cpu), work);
> }
> - preempt_enable();
> + put_online_cpus();
> flush_workqueue(keventd_wq);
Still racy. To kill the race, please move flush_workqueue() up, before
put_online_cpus().
> @@ -809,6 +809,7 @@ void destroy_workqueue(struct workqueue_
> struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
> int cpu;
>
> + get_online_cpus();
> mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> list_del(&wq->list);
> mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
> @@ -817,6 +818,7 @@ void destroy_workqueue(struct workqueue_
> cwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu);
> cleanup_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
> }
> + put_online_cpus();
Correct, but I'd suggest to do put_online_cpus() earlier, right after
mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex).
> @@ -830,22 +832,17 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callb
> unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
> struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
> struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> + int ret = NOTIFY_OK;
>
> action &= ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN;
>
> switch (action) {
> - case CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE:
> - mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> - return NOTIFY_OK;
> -
> - case CPU_LOCK_RELEASE:
> - mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
> - return NOTIFY_OK;
>
please remove this emtpy line
> case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
> cpu_set(cpu, cpu_populated_map);
> }
>
> + mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
We don't need workqueue_mutex here. With your patch workqueue_mutex protects
list_head, nothing more. But all other callers (create/destroy) should take
get_online_cpus() anyway. This means that we can convert workqueue_mutex to
spinlock_t.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-21 11:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-16 10:33 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Refcount Based Cpu-Hotplug Revisit Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-16 10:34 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] Refcount Based Cpu-Hotplug Implementation Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-17 0:47 ` Rusty Russell
2007-10-17 5:37 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-17 6:29 ` Rusty Russell
2007-10-18 6:29 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-21 12:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-10-17 10:53 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-17 11:27 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-17 11:50 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-17 12:04 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-16 10:35 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug to get_online_cpus Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-17 16:13 ` Nathan Lynch
2007-10-18 7:57 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-18 8:22 ` Nathan Lynch
2007-10-18 8:59 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-18 17:30 ` Nathan Lynch
2007-10-19 5:04 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-22 0:43 ` Nathan Lynch
2007-10-22 4:51 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-16 10:36 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] Replace per-subsystem mutexes with get_online_cpus Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-21 11:39 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2007-10-22 4:58 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-16 10:37 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] Remove CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELLED handling from workqueue.c Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-17 11:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-10-16 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Refcount Based Cpu-Hotplug Revisit Linus Torvalds
2007-10-17 2:11 ` Dipankar Sarma
2007-10-17 2:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-10-17 4:17 ` Gautham R Shenoy
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=20071021113917.GA80@tv-sign.ru \
--to=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vatsa@in.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