From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU in next/mmotm
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:57:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090809185753.GG6866@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0908091346450.27358@sister.anvils>
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 02:06:05PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > filp 13343 objects:
> >
> > CPU last cur F M
> > 0 1 0 0 0
> > 1 0 0 0 0
> > 2 -1 0 0 0
> > 3 0 0 0 0
> > ggp = 35124, state = waitzero
>
> Interesting that rcu_try_flip_waitzero() doesn't see 1 + 0 + -1 + 0 == 0.
Indeed!!! You nailed it!!!
> That's because rcu_cpu_online_map is 0x1 instead of the 0xf it should be.
>
> Which is because I don't have CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=y on that PPC machine
> (unlike the x86s), and I think you've made some recent mods which
> accidentally made the rcu cpu initialization dependent on hotplug
> cpu notifiers? CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=y and it works properly again.
Back to the drawing board at this end...
> And TREE_RCU doesn't use an rcu_cpu_online_map (though it does expect
> some per-cpu initialization, but seems to get away without it).
Only by pure luck. The kind of luck that gets you into serious trouble
later on.
> So I think that's the mystery solved - I'll let you decide the right fix!
Thank you -very- much for tracking this down, Hugh!!!
I introduced the problem in commit 7fe616c5dd50a50f334edec1ea0580b90b7af0d9
by changing from register_cpu_notifier() to hotcpu_notifier(). The former
lets you know when CPUs come on line unconditionally, the latter only
when CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU is in effect.
But hotcpu_notifier() is much nicer to use, so I propose introducing
a cpu_notifier() that is invoked like hotcpu_notifier() is, but is
unconditional in the same way that register_cpu_notifier().
Something like the following (untested, probably does not compile):
diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
index 4d668e0..d5dfc1f 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
@@ -48,6 +48,15 @@ struct notifier_block;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/* Need to know about CPUs going up/down? */
+#if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || !defined(MODULE)
+#define cpu_notifier(fn, pri) { \
+ static struct notifier_block fn##_nb __cpuinitdata = \
+ { .notifier_call = fn, .priority = pri }; \
+ register_cpu_notifier(&fn##_nb); \
+}
+#else /* #if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || !defined(MODULE) */
+#define cpu_notifier(fn, pri) do { (void)(fn); } while (0)
+#endif /* #else #if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || !defined(MODULE) */
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
extern int register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
extern void unregister_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
@@ -99,11 +108,7 @@ extern struct sysdev_class cpu_sysdev_class;
extern void get_online_cpus(void);
extern void put_online_cpus(void);
-#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri) { \
- static struct notifier_block fn##_nb __cpuinitdata = \
- { .notifier_call = fn, .priority = pri }; \
- register_cpu_notifier(&fn##_nb); \
-}
+#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri) cpu_notifier(fn, pri)
#define register_hotcpu_notifier(nb) register_cpu_notifier(nb)
#define unregister_hotcpu_notifier(nb) unregister_cpu_notifier(nb)
int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu);
diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
index 9f0584e..c1bbfd5 100644
--- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
+++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
int i;
__rcu_init();
- hotcpu_notifier(rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug, 0);
+ cpu_notifier(rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug, 0);
/*
* We don't need protection against CPU-hotplug here because
With this in place:
diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
index 9f0584e..c1bbfd5 100644
--- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
+++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
int i;
__rcu_init();
- hotcpu_notifier(rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug, 0);
+ cpu_notifier(rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug, 0);
/*
* We don't need protection against CPU-hotplug here because
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-09 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-08 19:34 Hugh Dickins
2009-08-08 23:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-09 3:32 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-08-09 5:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-09 11:24 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-08-09 13:06 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-08-09 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-08-09 20:53 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-08-09 21:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-10 3:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-10 22:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-12 1:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-12 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-13 0:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20090809185753.GG6866@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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
Powered by JetHome