From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com,
travis@sgi.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: + work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:25:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090203112529.26e6bf76.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c62985530902030858y28906b2dh511c5868afabfd17@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:58:13 +0100
Fr__d__ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
> >
> > * akpm@linux-foundation.org <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> Subject: work_on_cpu(): rewrite it to create a kernel thread on demand
> >> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> >>
> >> The various implemetnations and proposed implemetnations of work_on_cpu()
> >> are vulnerable to various deadlocks because they all used queues of some
> >> form.
> >>
> >> Unrelated pieces of kernel code thus gained dependencies wherein if one
> >> work_on_cpu() caller holds a lock which some other work_on_cpu() callback
> >> also takes, the kernel could rarely deadlock.
> >>
> >> Fix this by creating a short-lived kernel thread for each work_on_cpu()
> >> invokation.
> >>
> >> This is not terribly fast, but the only current caller of work_on_cpu() is
> >> pci_call_probe().
> >
> > hm, it's quite ugly as well
No it isn't.
It's no less ugly than the current code.
It's less buggy than the current code.
>, and wasteful with resources.
The current code consumes about 10kbytes per cpu and one kernel thread
per cpu. This code fixes that.
(ie: since when did you guys care about consuming resources?)
> Sorry I don't see the patch but only the changelog.
> So perhaps my answer will be a bit out of sync.
>
> But if pci_call_probe() is the only caller, so it is supposed to be
> called only on boot.
> Perhaps the work_on_cpu thread can be killed after boot up and then
> become a thread created
> on the fly after that if needed....
>
> Or perhaps it's too much complex.....
Series of four patches:
- switch cstate.c frmo work_on_cpu to smp_call_function_single()
- ditto acpi-cpufreq.c
- ditto mce_amd_64.c
The final work_on_cpu() caller is pci_call_probe(). I'd like to find a
way of removing that callsite as well, so we can finally remove this
turkey but for now, just fix the bugs in it:
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
The various implementations and proposed implementations of work_on_cpu()
are vulnerable to various deadlocks because they all use queues of some
form.
Unrelated pieces of kernel code thus gained dependencies wherein if one
work_on_cpu() caller holds a lock which some other work_on_cpu() callback
also takes, the kernel could rarely deadlock.
Also, the present work_on_cpu() implementation creates yet another kernel
thread per CPU.
Fix this by creating a short-lived kernel thread for each work_on_cpu()
invokation.
This is not terribly fast, but the only current caller of work_on_cpu() is
pci_call_probe().
It would be nice to find some other way of doing the node-local
allocations in the PCI probe code so that we can zap work_on_cpu()
altogether. The code there is rather nasty. I can't think of anything
simple at this time...
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff -puN kernel/workqueue.c~work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand kernel/workqueue.c
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c~work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand
+++ a/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -971,20 +971,20 @@ undo:
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-static struct workqueue_struct *work_on_cpu_wq __read_mostly;
struct work_for_cpu {
- struct work_struct work;
+ struct completion completion;
long (*fn)(void *);
void *arg;
long ret;
};
-static void do_work_for_cpu(struct work_struct *w)
+static int do_work_for_cpu(void *_wfc)
{
- struct work_for_cpu *wfc = container_of(w, struct work_for_cpu, work);
-
+ struct work_for_cpu *wfc = _wfc;
wfc->ret = wfc->fn(wfc->arg);
+ complete(&wfc->completion);
+ return 0;
}
/**
@@ -995,17 +995,23 @@ static void do_work_for_cpu(struct work_
*
* This will return the value @fn returns.
* It is up to the caller to ensure that the cpu doesn't go offline.
+ * The caller must not hold any locks which would prevent @fn from completing.
*/
long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
{
- struct work_for_cpu wfc;
-
- INIT_WORK(&wfc.work, do_work_for_cpu);
- wfc.fn = fn;
- wfc.arg = arg;
- queue_work_on(cpu, work_on_cpu_wq, &wfc.work);
- flush_work(&wfc.work);
-
+ struct task_struct *sub_thread;
+ struct work_for_cpu wfc = {
+ .completion = COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(wfc.completion),
+ .fn = fn,
+ .arg = arg,
+ };
+
+ sub_thread = kthread_create(do_work_for_cpu, &wfc, "work_for_cpu");
+ if (IS_ERR(sub_thread))
+ return PTR_ERR(sub_thread);
+ kthread_bind(sub_thread, cpu);
+ wake_up_process(sub_thread);
+ wait_for_completion(&wfc.completion);
return wfc.ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
@@ -1021,8 +1027,4 @@ void __init init_workqueues(void)
hotcpu_notifier(workqueue_cpu_callback, 0);
keventd_wq = create_workqueue("events");
BUG_ON(!keventd_wq);
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- work_on_cpu_wq = create_workqueue("work_on_cpu");
- BUG_ON(!work_on_cpu_wq);
-#endif
}
_
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-03 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200902031058.n13AwOoK016719@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
2009-02-03 12:11 ` + work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Ingo Molnar
2009-02-03 16:58 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2009-02-03 19:25 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-02-04 3:58 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-04 4:16 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 10:46 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-12 20:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-12 22:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 22:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 22:23 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-12 23:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 22:20 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-13 21:21 ` 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=20090203112529.26e6bf76.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mm-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--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