public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] irq_work: Architecture support for remote irq work raise
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 19:17:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140512171729.GD13467@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140512162641.GA28033@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:26:49PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:56:50AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:33:53AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > We are going to extend irq work to support remote queuing.
> > > 
> > > So lets add a cpu argument to arch_irq_work_raise(). The architectures
> > > willing to support that must then provide the backend to raise irq work
> > > IPIs remotely.
> > > 
> > > Initial support is provided for x86 and ARM since they are easily
> > > extended. The other archs that overwrite arch_irq_work_raise() seem
> > > to use local clock interrupts and therefore need deeper rewrite of their
> > > irq work support to implement remote raising.
> > > 
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Why not borrow the smp_call_function IPI for the remote bits? We could
> > limit the 'safe from NMI' to the local works. And we validate this by
> > putting a WARN_ON(in_nmi()) in irq_work_queue_on().
> 
> Right, but although I don't need it to be safe from NMI, I need it
> to be callable concurrently and when irqs are disabled.
> 
> So we can't use smp_call_function_single() for that. But we can use the async
> version in which case we must keep the irq work claim. But that's
> about the same than smp_queue_function_single() we had previously
> and we are back with our csd_lock issue.

Who said anything about using smp_call_function_single()?


---
diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
index a82170e2fa78..2fc9d8ece05a 100644
--- a/kernel/irq_work.c
+++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
@@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ void __weak arch_irq_work_raise(void)
  *
  * Can be re-enqueued while the callback is still in progress.
  */
-bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
+static __always_inline bool
+__irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
 {
 	/* Only queue if not already pending */
 	if (!irq_work_claim(work))
@@ -78,16 +79,31 @@ bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
 	 * for the next tick.
 	 */
 	if (!(work->flags & IRQ_WORK_LAZY) || tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
-		if (!this_cpu_cmpxchg(irq_work_raised, 0, 1))
-			arch_irq_work_raise();
+		if (cmpxchg(&__get_cpu_var(irq_work_raised, 0, 1) == 0)) {
+			if (cpu == smp_processor_id() || cpu == -1)
+				arch_irq_work_raise();
+			else
+				arch_send_call_function_single_ipi();
+		}
 	}
 
 	preempt_enable();
 
 	return true;
 }
+
+bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
+{
+	return __irq_work_queue_on(work, -1);
+}
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue);
 
+bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
+{
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi());
+	return __irq_work_queue_on(work, cpu);
+}
+
 bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void)
 {
 	struct llist_head *this_list;
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 06d574e42c72..0fd53963c4fb 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -198,6 +198,12 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
 		csd->func(csd->info);
 		csd_unlock(csd);
 	}
+
+	/*
+	 * First run the synchronous callbacks, people are waiting on them;
+	 * then run the async ones.
+	 */
+	irq_work_run();
 }
 
 /*

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-12 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-11 23:33 [RFC PATCH 0/5] nohz: Move nohz kick out of scheduler IPI, v3 Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 1/5] irq_work: Architecture support for remote irq work raise Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-12  0:08   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-12  3:11     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-12 16:29       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-12  7:56   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-12 16:26     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-12 17:17       ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-05-12 17:41         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 2/5] irq_work: Force non-lazy works on IPI Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 3/5] irq_work: Allow remote queueing Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 4/5] nohz: Move full nohz kick to its own IPI Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 5/5] nohz: Use IPI implicit full barrier against rq->nr_running r/w Frederic Weisbecker

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=20140512171729.GD13467@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=khilman@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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