From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
To: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: akpm <akpm@osdl.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Srivattsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
x86-64 <discuss@x86-64.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustycorp.com.au>, ak <ak@muc.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/5] try2: x86_64: Dont use broadcast shortcut to make it cpu hotplug safe.
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:13:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1118128410.3949.3.camel@linux-hp.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050606192113.307745000@araj-em64t>
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 12:14 -0700, Ashok Raj wrote:
> plain text document attachment (no_broadcast_ipi.patch)
> Broadcast IPI's provide un-expected behaviour for cpu hotplug. CPU's in offline
> state also end up receiving the IPI. Once the cpus become online
> they receive these stale IPI's which are bad and introduce unexpected
> behaviour.
>
> This is easily avoided by not sending a broadcast and addressing just the
> CPU's in online map. Doing prelim cycle counts it appears there is no big
> overhead and numbers seem around 0x3000-0x3900 on an average on x86 and x86_64
> systems with CPUS running 3G, both for broadcast and mask version of the API's.
>
> The shortcuts are useful only for flat mode (where the perf shows no
> degradation), and in cluster mode, its unicast anyway. Its simpler
> to just not use broadcast anymore.
With the patch. smp_call_function still has race. It accesses
cpu_online_map twice. First calculate online cpu counter and second,
send the ipi, so it's not atomic. We should do something like this:
Thanks,
Shaohua
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/smp.c 2005-04-26 08:47:08.000000000 +0800
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/smp.c 2005-05-31 16:37:10.565141944 +0800
@@ -527,10 +527,13 @@ int smp_call_function (void (*func) (voi
{
struct call_data_struct data;
int cpus;
+ cpumask_t mask;
/* Holding any lock stops cpus from going down. */
spin_lock(&call_lock);
- cpus = num_online_cpus()-1;
+ mask = cpu_online_map;
+ cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), mask);
+ cpus = cpus_weight(mask);
if (!cpus) {
spin_unlock(&call_lock);
@@ -551,7 +554,7 @@ int smp_call_function (void (*func) (voi
mb();
/* Send a message to all other CPUs and wait for them to respond */
- send_IPI_allbutself(CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
+ send_IPI_mask(mask, CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
/* Wait for response */
while (atomic_read(&data.started) != cpus)
--- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c 2005-04-12 10:12:16.000000000 +0800
+++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c 2005-05-31 16:38:07.613469280 +0800
@@ -303,8 +303,11 @@ static void __smp_call_function (void (*
int nonatomic, int wait)
{
struct call_data_struct data;
- int cpus = num_online_cpus()-1;
+ int cpus;
+ cpumask_t mask = cpu_online_map;
+ cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), mask);
+ cpus = cpus_weight(mask);
if (!cpus)
return;
@@ -318,7 +321,7 @@ static void __smp_call_function (void (*
call_data = &data;
wmb();
/* Send a message to all other CPUs and wait for them to respond */
- send_IPI_allbutself(CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
+ send_IPI_mask(mask, CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
/* Wait for response */
while (atomic_read(&data.started) != cpus)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-07 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-06 19:14 [patch 0/5] x86_64: try2: CPU hotplug patch series Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 19:14 ` [patch 1/5] try2: x86_64: Change init sections for CPU hotplug support Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 19:14 ` [patch 2/5] try2: x86_64: " Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 22:11 ` Andrew Morton
2005-06-06 22:43 ` Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 19:14 ` [patch 3/5] try2: x86_64: CPU hotplug sibling map cleanup Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 19:14 ` [patch 4/5] try2: x86_64: Dont use broadcast shortcut to make it cpu hotplug safe Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 22:13 ` Andrew Morton
2005-06-07 7:13 ` Shaohua Li [this message]
2005-06-07 12:05 ` Ashok Raj
2005-06-07 15:40 ` Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 19:14 ` [patch 5/5] try2: x86_64: Provide ability to choose using shortcuts for IPI in flat mode Ashok Raj
2005-06-06 22:14 ` Andrew Morton
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=1118128410.3949.3.camel@linux-hp.sh.intel.com \
--to=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustycorp.com.au \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®