From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757975Ab0DGNfm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:42 -0400
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:54179 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757926Ab0DGNfl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4BBC8A11.3040501@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:35:13 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
       Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Nathan Fontenot <nfont@austin.ibm.com>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Sachin Sant <sachinp@in.ibm.com>,
       "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Shane Wang <shane.wang@intel.com>,
       Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuhotplug: make get_online_cpus() scalability by
 using percpu counter
References: <4BB9BD8A.9040209@cn.fujitsu.com> <20100405162901.GA3567@redhat.com> <20100406120039.GC5680@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100406120039.GC5680@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 04/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> 1) get_online_cpus() must be allowed to be called recursively, so I added
>>>    get_online_cpus_nest for every task for new code.
>> Well, iirc one of the goals of
>>
>> 	cpu-hotplug: replace lock_cpu_hotplug() with get_online_cpus()
>> 	86ef5c9a8edd78e6bf92879f32329d89b2d55b5a
>>
>> was avoiding the new members in task_struct. I leave this up to you
>> and Gautham.

Old get_online_cpus() is read-preference, I think the goal of this ability
is allow get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() to be called nested.

But read-preference RWL may cause write side starvation, so I abandon this ability,
and use per-task counter for allowing get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
to be called nested, I think this deal is absolutely worth.

>>
>>
>> Lai, I didn't read this patch carefully yet (and I can't apply it to
>> Linus's tree). But at first glance,
> 
> because I tried to apply it without 1/2 ;)
> 
>>>  void put_online_cpus(void)
>>>  {
>>> ...
>>> +	if (!--current->get_online_cpus_nest) {
>>> +		preempt_disable();
>>> +		__get_cpu_var(refcount)--;
>>> +		if (cpu_hotplug_task)
>>> +			wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug_task);
>> This looks unsafe. In theory nothing protects cpu_hotplug_task from
>> exiting if refcount_sum() becomes zero, this means wake_up_process()
>> can hit the freed/reused/unmapped task_struct. Probably cpu_hotplug_done()
>> needs another synhronize_sched() before return.
> 
> Yes, I think this is true, at least in theory.

preempt_disable() prevent cpu_hotplug_task from exiting.


Thanks, Lai