From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 2/6] Introduce cpu_notifier() to handle !HOTPLUG_CPU case
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:28:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090817182857.GG6760@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1250529719.2709.11.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:21:59AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 09:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > This patch introduces a new cpu_notifier() API that is similar to
> > hotcpu_notifier(), but which also notifies of CPUs coming online during
> > boot in the !HOTPLUG_CPU case.
> [...]
> > --- 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) */
>
> These two definitions seem inconsistent. I think the first one needs to
> change to use do { ... } while(0) as well, so it eats the subsequent
> semicolon.
Ha! I just copied the old hotcpu_notifier style. Will send a patch
fixing both. Or feel free to send one, if you wish.
> Does this really want to live under defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU)? What
> happens when onlining CPUs during the !define(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) case?
> This seems somewhat inconsistent with the explanation in your commit
> message; can you clarify?
The !MODULE covers the !define(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) case, please see
below.
> Also, why !defined(MODULE)?
Here is how the cases lay out:
o !CONFIG_SMP: there is only one CPU, and so there can be no
CPU-hotplug operations, even at boot. Therefore, the
cpu_notifier() need do nothing.
o CONFIG_SMP && CPU_HOTPLUG_CPU: CPUs can come and go at any
time, so we need cpu_notifier() to actually register a
notifier.
o CONFIG_SMP && !CPU_HOTPLUG_CPU && MODULE: CPUs cannot go
offline, but they do come online at boot time. But MODULE means
that this code is in a module, and modules cannot be loaded
until later, after all CPUs have come online. So cpu_notifier()
need do nothing in this case.
o CONFIG_SMP && !CPU_HOTPLUG_CPU && !MODULE: CPUs cannot go
offline, but they do come online at boot time. This code
is not in a module, so might be running at boot time, and
thus might need to deal with CPUs coming online. Therefore,
cpu_notifier() must actually register a notifier.
The difference between hotcpu_notifier() and cpu_notifier() is in this
last case. You would use hotcpu_notifier() for non-module code that did
not run until all CPUs had come online, and thus would not need to deal
with CPU hotplug unless HOTPLUG_CPU was actually defined.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-17 18:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-15 16:51 [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 1/6] Cleanups and fixes for RCU in face of heavy CPU-hotplug stress Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 16:53 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 1/6] Split hierarchical RCU initialization into boot-time and CPU-online pieces Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 17:07 ` [tip:core/rcu] rcu: " tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 16:53 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 2/6] Introduce cpu_notifier() to handle !HOTPLUG_CPU case Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 17:07 ` [tip:core/rcu] cpu hotplug: " tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-17 17:21 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 2/6] " Josh Triplett
2009-08-17 18:28 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-08-15 16:53 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 3/6] Simplify RCU CPU-hotplug notification Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 17:07 ` [tip:core/rcu] rcu: " tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-20 4:02 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 3/6] " Lai Jiangshan
2009-08-20 4:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 16:53 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 4/6] Make preemptable RCU scan all CPUs when summing RCU counters Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 17:07 ` [tip:core/rcu] rcu: " tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 16:53 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 5/6] Make rcupreempt_trace.c look at offline CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 17:07 ` [tip:core/rcu] rcu: " tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 16:53 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 6/6] Fix typo in rcu_irq_exit() comment header Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 17:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-15 17:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-15 17:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-15 17:08 ` [tip:core/rcu] rcu: " tip-bot for Josh Triplett
2009-08-17 18:24 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 1/6] Cleanups and fixes for RCU in face of heavy CPU-hotplug stress Josh Triplett
2009-08-17 19:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-18 15:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-18 20:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-19 6:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-19 11:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-19 12:09 ` [tip:core/rcu] rcu: Delay rcu_barrier() wait until beginning of next CPU-hotunplug operation tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-19 15:24 ` [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 1/6] Cleanups and fixes for RCU in face of heavy CPU-hotplug stress Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-08-19 16:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-19 18:10 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-08-19 18:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-20 14:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-08-21 14:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-21 14:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-21 14:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-21 15:00 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-08-21 15:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-08-21 14:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=20090817182857.GG6760@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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