From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:09:23 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200901292109.24160.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <498096BA.2000301@sgi.com>
On Thursday 29 January 2009 04:02:42 Mike Travis wrote:
> Mike Travis wrote:
> > Hi Rusty,
> >
> > I'm testing this now on x86_64 and one question comes up. The
> > initialization of the woc_wq thread happens quite late. Might it
> > be better to initialize it earlier?
>
> Umm, definitely needed earlier... A bug catcher caught this. Work_on_cpu
> is being called before it's initialized.
>
> [ 16.541297] calling microcode_init+0x0/0x13a @ 1
OK, core_initcall will be sufficient to call before this one.
I also want to change the code so that the affinity is set from work_on_cpu rather than the thread itself; it's slightly more efficient.
Here's a patch-on-top.
work_on_cpu: bug fix and enhancements
Make it a core_initcall, since a module_initcall needs it.
Also, make the caller set the affinity of the worker thread: this is
more efficient than setting our own affinity (which requires the
migration thread's help).
This has two side effects:
1) We will oops if work_on_cpu is called too early,
2) We can WARN_ON and just run on the wrong cpu rather than locking up if
they ask for an offline cpu (bug compatible old method of calling
set_cpus_allowed).
Test code exercises WARN_ON; you probably want to remove it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
diff --git a/kernel/work_on_cpu.c b/kernel/work_on_cpu.c
--- a/kernel/work_on_cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/work_on_cpu.c
@@ -5,6 +5,10 @@
#include <linux/cpumask.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#define DEBUG
+
+/* The thread which actually does the work. */
+static struct task_struct *woc_thread;
/* The thread waits for new work on this waitqueue. */
static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(woc_wq);
/* The lock ensures only one job is done at a time. */
@@ -12,7 +16,9 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(woc_mutex);
/* The details of the current job. */
struct work_for_cpu {
+#ifdef DEBUG
unsigned int cpu;
+#endif
long (*fn)(void *);
void *arg;
long ret;
@@ -33,8 +39,9 @@ static int do_work_on_cpu(void *unused)
wait_event(woc_wq, current_work != NULL);
- set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(current_work->cpu));
+#ifdef DEBUG
WARN_ON(smp_processor_id() != current_work->cpu);
+#endif
current_work->ret = current_work->fn(current_work->arg);
/* Make sure ret is set before we complete(). Paranoia. */
@@ -62,12 +69,21 @@ long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long
{
struct work_for_cpu work;
+#ifdef DEBUG
work.cpu = cpu;
+#endif
work.fn = fn;
work.arg = arg;
init_completion(&work.done);
mutex_lock(&woc_mutex);
+ if (set_cpus_allowed_ptr(woc_thread, cpumask_of(cpu)) != 0) {
+ WARN(1, "work_on_cpu on offline cpu %i?\n", cpu);
+#ifdef DEBUG
+ /* Avoids the additional WARN_ON in the thread. */
+ work.cpu = task_cpu(woc_thread);
+#endif
+ }
/* Make sure all is in place before it sees fn set. */
wmb();
current_work = &work;
@@ -81,7 +97,7 @@ long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
-#if 1
+#ifdef DEBUG
static long test_fn(void *arg)
{
printk("%u: %lu\n", smp_processor_id(), (long)arg);
@@ -93,16 +109,16 @@ static int __init init(void)
{
unsigned int i;
- kthread_run(do_work_on_cpu, NULL, "kwork_on_cpu");
+ woc_thread = kthread_run(do_work_on_cpu, NULL, "kwork_on_cpu");
-#if 1
- for_each_online_cpu(i) {
+#ifdef DEBUG
+ for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
long ret = work_on_cpu(i, test_fn, (void *)i);
printk("CPU %i returned %li\n", i, ret);
- BUG_ON(ret != i + 100);
+ BUG_ON(cpu_online(i) && ret != i + 100);
}
#endif
return 0;
}
-module_init(init);
+core_initcall(init);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-29 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-16 19:11 [PATCH 0/3] cpu freq: fix problems with work_on_cpu usage in acpi-cpufreq Mike Travis
2009-01-16 19:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] work_on_cpu: dont try to get_online_cpus() in work_on_cpu Mike Travis
2009-01-16 19:11 ` [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue Mike Travis
2009-01-24 8:15 ` Andrew Morton
[not found] ` <200901261711.43943.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2009-01-26 7:01 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 17:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 18:35 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 20:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 20:43 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-26 21:00 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 21:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 21:35 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 21:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:01 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:16 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:50 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 23:42 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 23:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-27 0:42 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 21:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 23:01 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-27 0:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 7:15 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-27 17:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 7:05 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-27 7:25 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-27 15:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-27 16:51 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 13:02 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-28 17:19 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-28 17:32 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-29 10:39 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2009-01-28 19:44 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 1:43 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-29 2:12 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-30 6:03 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-30 6:30 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-30 13:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 17:08 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-30 21:59 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-30 22:17 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-02 12:35 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-03 4:06 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 2:44 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-04 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 10:41 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-04 15:36 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 21:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-04 21:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 21:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-04 23:45 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-05 12:19 ` Pavel Machek
2009-02-05 17:44 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-02-10 8:54 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-10 9:35 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-11 0:32 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-16 19:11 ` [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: use work_on_cpu in acpi-cpufreq.c for drv_read and drv_write Mike Travis
2009-01-16 23:38 ` [PATCH 0/3] cpu freq: fix problems with work_on_cpu usage in acpi-cpufreq [PULL request] Mike Travis
2009-01-17 22:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-19 17:11 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-19 17:26 ` Ingo Molnar
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=200901292109.24160.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=travis@sgi.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