From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>,
xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, npiggin@suse.de,
deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
rusty@rustcorp.com.au, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, miltonm@bga.com,
srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com,
tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, shli@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, anton@samba.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jbeulich@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] smp/ipi: Remove redundant cfd->cpumask_ipi mask
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 22:15:06 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51D99B12.7040407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130706060317.GA3382@udknight>
Hi Wang,
On 07/06/2013 11:33 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:59:39AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Hi Wang,
>>
>> On 07/06/2013 08:43 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:57:01PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>>> cfd->cpumask_ipi is used only in smp_call_function_many().The existing
>>>> comment around it says that this additional mask is used because
>>>> cfd->cpumask can get overwritten.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason why the cfd->cpumask can be overwritten, since this
>>>> is a per_cpu mask; nobody can change it but us and we are
>>>> called with preemption disabled.
>>>
>>> The ChangeLog for f44310b98ddb7f0d06550d73ed67df5865e3eda5
>>> which import cfd->cpumask_ipi saied the reason why we need
>>> it:
>>>
>>> " As explained by Linus as well:
>>>
>>> |
>>> | Once we've done the "list_add_rcu()" to add it to the
>>> | queue, we can have (another) IPI to the target CPU that can
>>> | now see it and clear the mask.
>>> |
>>> | So by the time we get to actually send the IPI, the mask might
>>> | have been cleared by another IPI.
>>
>> I am unable to understand where the cfd->cpumask of the source cpu is
>> getting cleared. Surely not by itself, since it is preempt disabled.
>> Also why should it get cleared?
>
> Assume we have three CPUs: A,B,C
>
> A call smp_call_function_many to notify C do something,
> and current it execute on finished below codes:
>
> "for_each_cpu(cpu, cfd->cpumask) {
> struct call_single_data *csd = per_cpu_ptr(cfd->csd, cpu);
> struct call_single_queue *dst =
> &per_cpu(call_single_queue, cpu);
> unsigned long flags;
>
> csd_lock(csd);
> csd->func = func;
> csd->info = info;
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&dst->lock, flags);
> list_add_tail(&csd->list, &dst->list);
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dst->lock, flags);
> }
> "
> You see "list_add_tail(&csd->list, &dst->list);", it pass the address of csd,
> and A stop before call arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask due interrupt.
>
> At this time B send ipi to C also, then C will see the csd passed by A,
> then C will clear itself in the cfd->cpumask.
Ah ok! Thank you very much for this clarification :)
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-07 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-05 16:26 [PATCH 0/3] smp/ipi: Minor cleanups in smp_call_function variants Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-05 16:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp/ipi: Remove redundant cfd->cpumask_ipi mask Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 3:13 ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-06 5:29 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 6:03 ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-07 16:45 ` Preeti U Murthy [this message]
2013-07-05 16:27 ` [PATCH 2/3] smp/ipi:Clarify ambiguous comments around deadlock scenarios in smp_call_function variants Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 6:12 ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-06 7:48 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 19:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-07-07 16:29 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-05 16:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] smp/ipi:Remove check around csd lock in handler for " Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 5:45 ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-06 8:06 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 14:21 ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-07 16:23 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-07 17:25 ` Wang YanQing
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=51D99B12.7040407@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miltonm@bga.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=shli@kernel.org \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=udknight@gmail.com \
--cc=xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com \
/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