mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl
Cc: npiggin@suse.de, deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
	heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, udknight@gmail.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, miltonm@bga.com,
	srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com,
	tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, shli@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, anton@samba.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] smp/ipi:Clarify ambiguous comments around deadlock scenarios in smp_call_function variants.
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 21:57:11 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130705162711.16888.30274.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130705162548.16888.18957.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com>

Elaborate on when deadlocks can occur when a call is made to
smp_call_function_single() and its friends. This avoids ambiguity about
when to use these calls.

Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au
---

 kernel/smp.c |   46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 89be6e6..b6981ae 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -230,7 +230,23 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, void *info,
 	this_cpu = get_cpu();
 
 	/*
-	 * Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled.
+	 * Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled under two
+	 * different circumstances depending on the wait parameter.
+	 *
+	 * 1. wait = 1: Two CPUs execute smp_call_function_single(), send an
+	 * IPI to each other, and wait for func to finish on each other.
+	 * Since they are interrupt disabled, neither receives this IPI,
+	 * nor do they proceed forward,as they wait for each other to complete
+	 * execution of func.
+	 *
+	 * 2. wait = 0: This function could be called from an interrupt
+	 * context, and can get blocked on the csd_lock(csd) below in
+	 * "non wait cases".
+	 * This is because the percpu copy of csd of this_cpu is used
+	 * in non wait cases. Under such circumstances, if the previous caller
+	 * of this function who got preempted by this interrupt has already taken
+	 * the lock under non wait condition, it will result in deadlock.
+	 *
 	 * We allow cpu's that are not yet online though, as no one else can
 	 * send smp call function interrupt to this cpu and as such deadlocks
 	 * can't happen.
@@ -329,6 +345,16 @@ void __smp_call_function_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *csd,
 	this_cpu = get_cpu();
 	/*
 	 * Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled.
+	 * 1. wait = 1: Two CPUs execute smp_call_function_single(), send an
+	 * IPI to each other, and wait for func to finish on each other.
+	 * Since they are interrupt disabled, neither receives this IPI,
+	 * nor do they proceed forward,as they wait for each other to complete
+	 * execution of func.
+	 *
+	 * 2. wait = 0:  A scenario similar to smp_call_function_single()
+	 * does not happen here, because each caller of
+	 * __smp_call_function_single() passes unique copies of csd.
+	 *
 	 * We allow cpu's that are not yet online though, as no one else can
 	 * send smp call function interrupt to this cpu and as such deadlocks
 	 * can't happen.
@@ -368,7 +394,23 @@ void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
 	int cpu, next_cpu, this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
 
 	/*
-	 * Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled.
+	 * Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled under two
+	 * different circumstances depending on the wait parameter.
+	 *
+	 * 1. wait = 1: Two CPUs execute smp_call_function_single(), send an
+	 * IPI to each other, and wait for func to finish on each other.
+	 * Since they are interrupt disabled, neither receives this IPI,
+	 * nor do they proceed forward,as they wait for each other to complete
+	 * execution of func.
+	 *
+	 * 2. wait = 0: This function could be called from an interrupt
+	 * context, and can get blocked on the csd_lock(csd) below in
+	 * "non wait cases".
+	 * This is because the percpu copy of csd of this_cpu is used
+	 * in non wait cases. Under such circumstances, if the previous caller
+	 * of this function who got preempted by this interrupt has already taken
+	 * the lock under non wait condition, it will result in deadlock.
+	 *
 	 * We allow cpu's that are not yet online though, as no one else can
 	 * send smp call function interrupt to this cpu and as such deadlocks
 	 * can't happen.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-07-05 16:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-05 16:26 [PATCH 0/3] smp/ipi: Minor cleanups " Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-05 16:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp/ipi: Remove redundant cfd->cpumask_ipi mask Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06  3:13   ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-06  5:29     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06  6:03       ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-07 16:45         ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-05 16:27 ` Preeti U Murthy [this message]
2013-07-06  6:12   ` [PATCH 2/3] smp/ipi:Clarify ambiguous comments around deadlock scenarios in smp_call_function variants Wang YanQing
2013-07-06  7:48     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 19:48       ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-07-07 16:29         ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-05 16:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] smp/ipi:Remove check around csd lock in handler for " Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06  5:45   ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-06  8:06     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-06 14:21       ` Wang YanQing
2013-07-07 16:23         ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-07-07 17:25           ` Wang YanQing

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=20130705162711.16888.30274.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com \
    --to=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miltonm@bga.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=shli@kernel.org \
    --cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=udknight@gmail.com \
    --cc=xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com \
    /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®