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 S1752925AbcCKNIF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:08:05 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45458 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752557AbcCKNIC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:08:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] sched: add function to execute a function
 synchronously on a physical cpu
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <1457697574-6710-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com>
 <1457697574-6710-3-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com>
 <20160311121950.GZ6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160311124238.GN6375@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <56E2BE8C.9030309@suse.com>
 <20160311125706.GC6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        konrad.wilk@oracle.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
        david.vrabel@citrix.com, mingo@redhat.com, Douglas_Warzecha@dell.com,
        pali.rohar@gmail.com, jdelvare@suse.com, linux@roeck-us.net,
        tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Message-ID: <56E2C32C.5070808@suse.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:07:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160311125706.GC6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
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

On 11/03/16 13:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:48:12PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 11/03/16 13:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> how about something like:
>>>
>>> struct xen_callback_struct {
>>> 	struct work_struct	work;
>>> 	struct completion	done;
> 	int			(*func)(void*);
>>> 	void *			data;
>>> 	int			ret;
>>> };
>>>
>>> static void xen_callback_f(struct work_struct *work)
>>> {
>>> 	struct xen_callback_struct *xcs = container_of(work, struct xen_callback_struct, work);
>>>
>>> 	xcs->ret = xcs->func(xcs->data);
>>>
>>> 	complete(&xcs->done);
>>> }
>>>
>>> xen_call_on_cpu_sync(int cpu, int (*func)(void *), void *data)
>>> {
>>> 	struct xen_callback_state xcs = {
>>> 		.work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(xcs.work, xen_callback_f);
>>> 		.done = COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(xcs.done),
> 		.func = func,
>>> 		.data = data,
>>> 	};
>>>
>>> 	queue_work_on(&work, cpu);
>>> 	wait_for_completion(&xcs.done);
>>>
>>> 	return xcs.ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> No mucking about with the scheduler state, no new exported functions
>>> etc..
>>>
>>
>> Hey, I like it. Can't be limited to Xen as on bare metal the function
>> needs to be called on cpu 0, too. But avoiding the scheduler fiddling
>> is much better! As this seems to be required for Dell hardware only,
>> I could add it to some Dell base driver in case you don't want to add
>> it to core code.
> 
> Urgh yeah, saw that in your other mail. It looks like I should go look
> at set_cpus_allowed_ptr() abuse :/
> 
> Not sure where this would fit best, maybe somewhere near workqueue.c or
> smp.c.

At a first glance I think smp.c would be the better choice. I'll have a try.

Thanks,

Juergen