From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Move the CPU_DYING notifiers
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:23:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080831192309.GB30283@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080831191721.GH7015@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:17:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 07:58:49PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > When a cpu is taken offline, the CPU_DYING notifiers are called on the
> > dying cpu. According to <linux/notifiers.h>, the cpu should be "not
> > running any task, not handling interrupts, soon dead".
> >
> > For the current implementation, this is not true:
> > - __cpu_disable can fail. If it fails, then the cpu will remain alive
> > and happy.
> > - At least on x86, __cpu_disable() briefly enables the local interrupts
> > to handle any outstanding interrupts.
> >
> > What about moving CPU_DYING down a few lines, behind the __cpu_disable()
> > line?
> > There are only two CPU_DYING handlers in the kernel right now: one in
> > kvm, one in the scheduler. Both should work with the patch applied
> > [and: I'm not sure if either one handles a failing __cpu_disable()]
> >
> > The patch survives simple offlining a cpu. kvm untested due to lack
> > of a test setup.
>
> Several architectures re-enable interrupts in __cpu_disable() or in
> functions called from __cpu_disable(), which happens after CPU_DYING,
> if I understand correctly. :-(
Never mind -- you are moving CPU_DYING after __cpu_disable(). :-/
Thanx, Paul
> > Signed-Off-By: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/cpu.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> > index e202a68..5b7c88f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -199,13 +199,14 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
> > struct take_cpu_down_param *param = _param;
> > int err;
> >
> > - raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DYING | param->mod,
> > - param->hcpu);
> > /* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */
> > err = __cpu_disable();
> > if (err < 0)
> > return err;
> >
> > + raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DYING | param->mod,
> > + param->hcpu);
> > +
> > /* Force idle task to run as soon as we yield: it should
> > immediately notice cpu is offline and die quickly. */
> > sched_idle_next();
> > --
> > 1.5.5.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-31 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-31 17:58 [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Move the CPU_DYING notifiers Manfred Spraul
2008-08-31 19:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-31 19:23 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2008-09-06 16:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-06 17:08 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-06 17:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-13 6:36 ` Avi Kivity
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=20080831192309.GB30283@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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