From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] smp: Document preemption and stop_machine() mutual exclusion
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 09:21:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250708072112.GA1613376@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250707141952.GA3640857@joelbox2>
On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 10:19:52AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> From: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] smp: Document preemption and stop_machine() mutual exclusion
>
> Recently while revising RCU's cpu online checks, there was some discussion
> around how IPIs synchronize with hotplug.
>
> Add comments explaining how preemption disable creates mutual exclusion with
> CPU hotplug's stop_machine mechanism. The key insight is that stop_machine()
> atomically updates CPU masks and flushes IPIs with interrupts disabled, and
> cannot proceed while any CPU (including the IPI sender) has preemption
> disabled.
>
> Cc: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Co-developed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
> ---
> I am leaving in Paul's Ack but Paul please let me know if there is a concern!
>
> kernel/smp.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 974f3a3962e8..957959031063 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ int smpcfd_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> * explicitly (without waiting for the IPIs to arrive), to
> * ensure that the outgoing CPU doesn't go offline with work
> * still pending.
> + *
> + * This runs with interrupts disabled inside the stopper task invoked
> + * by stop_machine(), ensuring CPU offlining and IPI flushing are atomic.
So below you use 'mutual exclusion', which I prefer over 'atomic' as
used here.
> */
> __flush_smp_call_function_queue(false);
> irq_work_run();
> @@ -418,6 +421,10 @@ void __smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct llist_node *node)
> */
> static int generic_exec_single(int cpu, call_single_data_t *csd)
> {
> + /*
> + * Preemption already disabled here so stopper cannot run on this CPU,
> + * ensuring mutual exclusion with CPU offlining and last IPI flush.
> + */
> if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> smp_call_func_t func = csd->func;
> void *info = csd->info;
> @@ -638,8 +645,10 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, void *info,
> int err;
>
> /*
> - * prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor,
> - * as well as CPU removal
> + * Prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor, as well as
> + * CPU removal.
> Also preempt_disable() prevents stopper from running on
> + * this CPU, thus providing atomicity between the cpu_online() check
> + * and IPI sending ensuring IPI is not missed by CPU going offline.
That first sentence already covers this, no? 'prevents preemption' ->
stopper task cannot run, 'CPU removal' -> no CPU_DYING (because no
stopper). Also that 'atomicy' vs 'mutual exclusion' thing.
> */
> this_cpu = get_cpu();
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-08 7:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-05 17:23 Joel Fernandes
2025-07-06 17:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-07-07 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-07 14:19 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-07-08 7:21 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-07-08 14:00 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-07-07 15:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-07-08 7:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-08 22:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-07-14 17:20 ` 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=20250708072112.GA1613376@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®