From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753242AbbF2Ivv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:51:51 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49484 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751612AbbF2Ivn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:51:43 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:51:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        der.herr@hofr.at, dave@stgolabs.net, riel@redhat.com,
        viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] stop_machine: kill stop_cpus_mutex and
 stop_cpus_lock
Message-ID: <20150629085127.GF19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150626021455.GA5675@redhat.com>
 <20150626122330.GY19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150626204612.GA14573@redhat.com>
 <20150629040251.GA14558@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150629040251.GA14558@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 06:02:51AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Btw. I can't understand the cpu_active() checks in stop_two_cpus().
> > Do we really need them?
> 
> Ah, please ignore.
> 
> Yes, we can't rely on stopper->enabled check in cpu_stop_queue_work(),
> cpu_stop_signal_done() does not update multi_stop_data->num_threads /
> ->thread_ack. So we need to ensure that cpu_online() == T for both CPUS
> or multi_cpu_stop() can hang.
> 
> But we can't use cpu_online() instead, take_cpu_down() can be already
> queued.
> 
> So this relies on the fact that CPU_DOWN_PREPARE (which removes CPU
> from cpu_active_mask) is called before stop_machine(take_cpu_down) and
> we do not care that cpu_active() is not stable; if we see cpu_active()
> cpu_online() can't change unders us because take_cpu_down() was not
> queued.

Just so.

> If we change stop_two_cpus() to use stop_work_alloc_one() it can use
> cpu_online(),

So the one user of this actually needs cpu_active(); we do not want to
go move tasks to an inactive cpu.

So if you change this to cpu_online() we need to audit the user is doing
the stricter test.