From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v7 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:57:19 +0800
Message-ID: <4A1C9DFF.70708@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <20090522190525.GA13286@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4A1A3C23.8090004@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090525164446.GD7168@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4A1B3FFB.7090306@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090526012843.GF7168@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090526154625.GA8662@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	davem@davemloft.net, dada1@cosmosbay.com, zbr@ioremap.net,
	jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, jengelh@medozas.de,
	r000n@r000n.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090526154625.GA8662@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> I am concerned about the following sequence of events:
> 
> o	synchronize_sched_expedited() disables preemption, thus blocking
> 	offlining operations.
> 
> o	CPU 1 starts offlining CPU 0.  It acquires the CPU-hotplug lock,
> 	and proceeds, and is now waiting for preemption to be enabled.
> 
> o	synchronize_sched_expedited() disables preemption, sees
> 	that CPU 0 is online, so initializes and queues a request,
> 	does a wake-up-process(), and finally does a preempt_enable().
> 
> o	CPU 0 is currently running a high-priority real-time process,
> 	so the wakeup does not immediately happen.
> 
> o	The offlining process completes, including the kthread_stop()
> 	to the migration task.
> 
> o	The migration task wakes up, sees kthread_should_stop(),
> 	and so exits without checking its queue.
> 
> o	synchronize_sched_expedited() waits forever for CPU 0 to respond.
> 
> I suppose that one way to handle this would be to check for the CPU
> going offline before doing the wait_for_completion(), but I am concerned
> about races affecting this check as well.
> 
> Or is there something in the CPU-offline process that makes the above
> sequence of events impossible?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> 

I realized this, I wrote this:
> 
> The coupling of synchronize_sched_expedited() and migration_req
> is largely increased:
> 
> 1) The offline cpu's per_cpu(rcu_migration_req, cpu) is handled.
>    See migration_call::CPU_DEAD

synchronize_sched_expedited() will not wait for CPU#0, because
migration_call()::case CPU_DEAD wakes up the requestors.

migration_call()
{
	...
	case CPU_DEAD:
	case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
		...
		/*
		 * No need to migrate the tasks: it was best-effort if
		 * they didn't take sched_hotcpu_mutex. Just wake up
		 * the requestors.
		 */
		spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
		while (!list_empty(&rq->migration_queue)) {
			struct migration_req *req;

			req = list_entry(rq->migration_queue.next,
					 struct migration_req, list);
			list_del_init(&req->list);
			spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
			complete(&req->done);
			spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
		}
		spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
		...
	...
}

My approach depend on the requestors are waked up at any case.
migration_call() does it for us but the coupling is largely
increased.

Lai