mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCH -next 1/6] smp: Document preemption and stop_machine() mutual exclusion
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:01:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250715200156.2852484-2-joelagnelf@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250715200156.2852484-1-joelagnelf@nvidia.com>

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.

[ Apply peterz feedback. ]

Cc: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.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>
---
 kernel/smp.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 974f3a3962e8..23d51a8e582d 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -86,13 +86,15 @@ int smpcfd_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 int smpcfd_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	/*
-	 * The IPIs for the smp-call-function callbacks queued by other
-	 * CPUs might arrive late, either due to hardware latencies or
-	 * because this CPU disabled interrupts (inside stop-machine)
-	 * before the IPIs were sent. So flush out any pending callbacks
-	 * explicitly (without waiting for the IPIs to arrive), to
-	 * ensure that the outgoing CPU doesn't go offline with work
-	 * still pending.
+	 * The IPIs for the smp-call-function callbacks queued by other CPUs
+	 * might arrive late, either due to hardware latencies or because this
+	 * CPU disabled interrupts (inside stop-machine) before the IPIs were
+	 * sent. So flush out any pending callbacks 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 mutually exclusive CPU offlining and IPI flush.
 	 */
 	__flush_smp_call_function_queue(false);
 	irq_work_run();
@@ -418,6 +420,10 @@ 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 mutually exclusive CPU offlining and last IPI flush.
+	 */
 	if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
 		smp_call_func_t func = csd->func;
 		void *info = csd->info;
@@ -638,8 +644,10 @@ 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 CPU, as well as CPU
+	 * removal. This prevents stopper from running on this CPU, thus
+	 * providing mutual exclusion of the below cpu_online() check and
+	 * IPI sending ensuring IPI are not missed by CPU going offline.
 	 */
 	this_cpu = get_cpu();
 
-- 
2.34.1


  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-15 20:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-15 20:01 [PATCH -next 0/6] Patches for v6.17 Joel Fernandes
2025-07-15 20:01 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2025-07-15 20:01 ` [PATCH -next 2/6] rcu: Refactor expedited handling check in rcu_read_unlock_special() Joel Fernandes
2025-07-15 20:01 ` [PATCH -next 3/6] rcu: Document GP init vs hotplug-scan ordering requirements Joel Fernandes
2025-07-15 20:01 ` [PATCH -next 4/6] rcu: Document separation of rcu_state and rnp's gp_seq Joel Fernandes
2025-07-15 20:01 ` [PATCH -next 5/6] rcu: Document concurrent quiescent state reporting for offline CPUs Joel Fernandes
2025-07-15 20:01 ` [PATCH -next 6/6] [please squash] fixup! rcu: Fix rcu_read_unlock() deadloop due to IRQ work Joel Fernandes
2025-07-16  5:32 ` [PATCH -next 0/6] Patches for v6.17 Neeraj upadhyay
2025-07-20  4:30 ` Akira Yokosawa
2025-07-21  4:29   ` Neeraj upadhyay
2025-07-21  8:27     ` Joel Fernandes

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=20250715200156.2852484-2-joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
    --to=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
    --cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®