From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] cpu/hotplug: Cache number of online CPUs
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:07:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190708140732.GI26519@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907081531560.4709@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:43:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Revaluating the bitmap wheight of the online cpus bitmap in every
s/wheight/weight/?
> invocation of num_online_cpus() over and over is a pretty useless
> exercise. Especially when num_online_cpus() is used in code pathes like the
> IPI delivery of x86 or the membarrier code.
>
> Cache the number of online CPUs in the core and just return the cached
> variable.
I do like this and the comments on limited guarantees make sense.
One suggestion for saving a few lines below, but either way:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
> V2: Use READ/WRITE_ONCE() and add comment what it actually achieves. Remove
> the bogus lockdep assert in the write path as the caller cannot hold the
> lock. It's a task on the plugged CPU which is not the controlling task.
> ---
> include/linux/cpumask.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
> kernel/cpu.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -95,8 +95,23 @@ extern struct cpumask __cpu_active_mask;
> #define cpu_present_mask ((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_present_mask)
> #define cpu_active_mask ((const struct cpumask *)&__cpu_active_mask)
>
> +extern unsigned int __num_online_cpus;
> +
> #if NR_CPUS > 1
> -#define num_online_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask)
> +/**
> + * num_online_cpus() - Read the number of online CPUs
> + *
> + * READ_ONCE() protects against theoretical load tearing and prevents
> + * the compiler from reloading the value in a function or loop.
> + *
> + * Even with that, this interface gives only a momentary snapshot and is
> + * not protected against concurrent CPU hotplug operations unless invoked
> + * from a cpuhp_lock held region.
> + */
> +static inline unsigned int num_online_cpus(void)
> +{
> + return READ_ONCE(__num_online_cpus);
> +}
> #define num_possible_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask)
> #define num_present_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_present_mask)
> #define num_active_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_active_mask)
> @@ -805,14 +820,7 @@ set_cpu_present(unsigned int cpu, bool p
> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_present_mask);
> }
>
> -static inline void
> -set_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu, bool online)
> -{
> - if (online)
> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_online_mask);
> - else
> - cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_online_mask);
> -}
> +void set_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu, bool online);
>
> static inline void
> set_cpu_active(unsigned int cpu, bool active)
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -2288,6 +2288,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpu_present_mask);
> struct cpumask __cpu_active_mask __read_mostly;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpu_active_mask);
>
> +unsigned int __num_online_cpus __read_mostly;
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__num_online_cpus);
> +
> void init_cpu_present(const struct cpumask *src)
> {
> cpumask_copy(&__cpu_present_mask, src);
> @@ -2303,6 +2306,25 @@ void init_cpu_online(const struct cpumas
> cpumask_copy(&__cpu_online_mask, src);
> }
>
> +void set_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu, bool online)
> +{
> + int adj = 0;
> +
> + if (online) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_online_mask))
> + adj = 1;
> + } else {
> + if (cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_online_mask))
> + adj = -1;
> + }
> + /*
> + * WRITE_ONCE() protects only against the theoretical stupidity of
> + * a compiler to tear the store, but won't protect readers which
> + * are not serialized against concurrent hotplug operations.
> + */
> + WRITE_ONCE(__num_online_cpus, __num_online_cpus + adj);
WRITE_ONCE(__num_online_cpus, cpumask_weight(__cpu_online_mask));
Then "adj" can be dispensed with, and the old non-value-returning atomic
updates can be used on __cpu_online_mask. Or is someone now depending
on full ordering from set_cpu_online() or some such?
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Activate the first processor.
> */
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-08 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-04 20:42 [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: Cache number of online CPUs Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-04 20:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2019-07-04 21:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-04 22:00 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2019-07-04 22:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-04 23:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2019-07-05 8:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-07-05 15:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2019-07-05 20:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-05 21:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-06 23:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2019-07-08 13:43 ` [PATCH V2] " Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-08 14:07 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-07-08 14:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-09 14:23 ` [PATCH V3] " Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-09 15:52 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2019-07-22 7:58 ` [tip:smp/hotplug] " tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-25 14:11 ` tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
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=20190708140732.GI26519@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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