From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_rapl: Correct hotplug correction
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:08:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140522100820.GE4383@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537DC6D2.8040305@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:13:46PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 02:53 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> >
> > So 009f225ef050 ("powercap, intel-rapl: Fix CPU hotplug callback
> > registration") says how get_/put_online_cpus() should be replaced with
> > this cpu_notifier_register_begin/_done().
> >
> > But they're still there so what's up?
> >
>
> Ok, so I retained that because the comments in the code said that
> the caller of rapl_cleanup_data() should hold the hotplug lock.
>
> Here is the snippet from the patch's changelog:
>
> ...
> Fix the intel-rapl code in the powercap driver by using this latter form
> of callback registration. But retain the calls to get/put_online_cpus(),
> since they also protect the function rapl_cleanup_data(). By nesting
> get/put_online_cpus() *inside* cpu_notifier_register_begin/done(), we avoid
> the ABBA deadlock possibility mentioned above.
My bad, I missed that part.
> But looking closer at the code, I think the only requirement is that
> rapl_cleanup_data() should be protected against CPU hotplug, and we
> don't actually need to hold the cpu_hotplug.lock per-se.
What is the difference between "CPU hotplug" and cpu_hotplug.lock?
>From looking at the code those are two different mutexes with
cpu_hotplug.lock, i.e. get_online_cpus() having a preemption point.
And yet, you want to replace get_/put_online_cpus() with
cpu_notifier_register_begin/_done() which is kinda the same thing but
not really. The one protects against hotplug operations and the other
protects against cpu hotplug notifier registration.
Oh, and there's a third one, aliased to the notifier one, which
is "attempting to serialize the updates to cpu_online_mask &
cpu_present_mask."
So why, oh why do we need three? This is absolutely insane. Do we have
at least one sensible reason why cpu hotplug users should need to know
all that gunk?
> cpu_notifier_register_begin()/end() also provide equivalent protection
> against CPU hotplug. So we should be able to remove the get/put_online_cpus()
> from intel-rapl driver.
Btw, rapl_exit() has both calls too :-\.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-22 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-22 9:23 [PATCH] intel_rapl: Correct hotplug correction Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 9:43 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 10:08 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2014-05-22 11:54 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 12:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-22 15:30 ` [PATCH] x86, MCE: Kill CPU_POST_DEAD Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 15:50 ` Luck, Tony
2014-05-22 19:55 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 21:13 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 21:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 21:40 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 21:43 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-26 20:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 21:31 ` [PATCH] intel_rapl: Correct hotplug correction Srivatsa S. Bhat
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=20140522100820.GE4383@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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