From: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RCU can use cpu_active_map?
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:50:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090209225000.GC3939@ldl.fc.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090209213929.GQ6802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 01:13:45PM -0700, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > I don't pretend to understand RCU, but a very quick and naive
> > look through rcupreempt.c makes me think that we could use the
> > cpu_active_map instead of cpu_online_map?
> >
> > cpu_active_map was introduced by e761b772.
> >
> > In the CPU hotplug path, we touch the cpu_active_map very early
> > on:
> >
> > int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> > {
> > int err;
> > err = stop_machine_create();
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > cpu_maps_update_begin();
> >
> > if (cpu_hotplug_disabled) {
> > err = -EBUSY;
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_active_map);
> > /* ... */
> > synchronize_sched();
> > err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
> > if (cpu_online(cpu))
> > cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map);
> >
> > out:
> > cpu_maps_update_done();
> > stop_machine_destroy();
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > The call to _cpu_down() is where we eventually get to the code
> > that my patch below touches, so you can see that we mark the CPU
> > as !active before we ever get to the step of migrating interrupts
> > (which relies on cpu_online_map).
> >
> > If RCU looked at cpu_active_map instead of cpu_online_map, it
> > seems like we would avoid the potential race situation you
> > mentioned earlier.
> >
> > Alternatively, I could explore just playing with the ia64
> > interrupt migration code to use cpu_active_mask instead, but
> > wanted to get your thoughts from the RCU perspective.
>
> Perhaps I am confused, but if the CPU is on its way down, doesn't RCU
> need a mask where the CPU's bit stays set longer rather than shorter?
>
> If I use cpu_active_mask, couldn't there be device interrupts during
> (for example) the synchronize_sched(), which might have RCU read-side
> critical sections that RCU needs to pay attention to?
Hm, I think you're right.
Thanks.
/ac
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-09 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-09 20:13 RCU can use cpu_active_map? Alex Chiang
2009-02-09 21:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-09 22:50 ` Alex Chiang [this message]
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=20090209225000.GC3939@ldl.fc.hp.com \
--to=achiang@hp.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.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