public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	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>,
	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 17:17:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090129161712.GC28984@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1233243212.4495.102.camel@laptop>


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> 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>

started testing it in tip/core/urgent, thanks guys!

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-29 16:17 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
2009-01-29 16:17             ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20090129161712.GC28984@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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