public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.
--

  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