Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab
- From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:51:21 +0530
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 07:51:40PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
kmem_cache_shrink:
From what I can gather by looking at the cpu hotplug code, disablingpreemption before iterating over cpu_online_map ensures that a
cpu won't disappear from the bitmask (system). But it does not ensure that a
cpu won't come up right? (I see stop_machine usage in the cpu_down path, but
not in the cpu_up path). But then on closer look I see that on_each_cpu
uses call_lock to protect the cpu_online_map against cpu_online events.
So, yes we don't need to take the cache_chain_sem here.
Yes thats what I thought.
kmem_cache_destroy:
We still need to stay serialized against cpu online here. I guess
you already know why :)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/3/23/80
sure!
Maybe I am missing something, but what prevents someone from reading the
wrong tsk->cpus_allowed at (A) below?
static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
{
...
...
set_cpus_allowed(current, tmp);
----- (A)
lock_cpu_hotplug() in sched_getaffinity was supposed to guard from
reading the wrong value you point out. But with recent churn of cpu hotplug
locking, this is broken now.
Ideally, lock_cpu_hotplug() should have taken something equivalent to
cpu_add_remove_lock (breaking cpufreq in the course :), but moving
mutex_lock(&cpu_bitmask_lock) few lines above (before set_cpus_allowed) should
also work in this case.
Alternately, taking a per-subsystem lock in DOWN_PREPARE/LOCK_ACQUIRE
notifications, which is used by sched_getaffinity also, would work
(as you note below).
mutex_lock(&cpu_bitmask_lock);
p = __stop_machine_run(take_cpu_down, NULL, cpu);
...
}
If we are discarding this whole lock_cpu_hotplug(), then IMO, we should
use LOCK_ACQUIRE/RELEASE, where ACQUIRE notification is sent *before*
messing with tsk->cpus_allowed and RELEASE notification sent *after*
restoring tsk->cpus_allowed (something like below):
@@ -186,13 +186,14 @@ int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
{
int err = 0;
- mutex_lock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
+ blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE,
+ (void *)(long)cpu);
if (cpu_hotplug_disabled)
err = -EBUSY;
else
err = _cpu_down(cpu);
-
- mutex_unlock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
+ blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_LOCK_RELEASE,
+ (void *)(long)cpu);
return err;
}
But, since we send CPU_DOWN_PREPARE at _cpu_down before set_cpus_allowed(),
is it not possible to take the per scheduler subsystem lock at DOWN_PREPARE
and serialize sched_getaffinity with the same per scheduler subsys lock?
CPU_DOWN_PREPARE is a good enough time to acquire the (scheduler
subsystem) lock. But I am more concerned about when we release that lock.
Releasing at CPU_DEAD/CPU_DOWN_FAILED is too early, since the tasks's
cpus_allowed mask would not have been restored by then. Thats why having a
separate notification to release (and acquire) the lock would make more sense I
thought.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab
- From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai
- Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab
- From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri
- Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab
- From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai
- [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab
- Prev by Date: Can't compile linux-2.6.10 on FC5
- Next by Date: Re: [2.6.19-rc3-mm1] BUG at arch/i386/mm/pageattr.c:165
- Previous by thread: Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab
- Next by thread: seexually expllicit: yoou waant sexual virgiin Cutie?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
