From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@intel.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
He Chen <he.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86/topology: Avoid wasting 128k for package id array
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:29:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <372083ad-2a77-4646-bc67-dd4348a521d9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711071729270.1716@nanos>
On 11/09/2017 07:43 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> [v5]: Change kmalloc to GFP_ATOMIC to fix "sleeping function" warning on
>> virtual machines.
>
> What has this to do with virtual machines? The very same issue is on
> physcial hardware because this is called from the early CPU bringup code
> with interrupts and preemption disabled.
There was a Intel test bot report of a failure during boot on virtual systems
with Andi's patch.
>
>> + /* Allocate and copy a new array */
>> + ltp_pkg_map_new = kmalloc(logical_packages * sizeof(u16), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + BUG_ON(!ltp_pkg_map_new);
>
> Having an allocation in that code path is a bad idea. First of all the
> error handling in there is just crap, because the only thing you can do is
> panic. Aside of that atomic allocations should be avoided when we can and
> we can.
>
> Sorry I missed that when looking at the patch earlier. Something along this
> makes it work proper:
>
> struct pkg_map {
> unsigned int size;
> unsigned int used;
> unsigned int map[0];
> };
>
> static struct pkg_map *logical_to_physical_pkg_map __read_mostly;
>
> static int resize_pkg_map(void)
> {
> struct pkg_map *newmap, *oldmap = logical_to_physical_pkg_map;
> int size;
>
> if (oldmap->size > oldmap->used)
> return 0;
>
> size = sizeof(*oldmap) + sizeof(unsigned int) * oldmap->size;
> newmap = kzalloc(size + sizeof(unsigned int));
> if (!newmap)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> memcpy(newmap, oldmap, size);
> newmap->size++;
> logical_to_physical_pkg_map = newmap;
> kfree(oldmap);
> return 0;
> }
>
> int __cpu_up(....)
> {
> if (resize_pkg_map())
> return -ENOMEM;
> return smp_ops.cpu_up(....);
> }
>
> static void update_map(....)
> {
> if (find_map())
> return;
> map->map[map->used] = physid;
> map->used++;
> }
>
> static void smp_init_package_map()
> {
> struct pkg_map *map;
>
> map = kzalloc(sizeof(*newmap) + sizeof(unsigned int));
> map->size = 1;
> }
>
> See? No BUG_ON() in the early secondary cpu boot code. If memory allocation
> fails the thing goes back gracefully.
>
> Locking/barriers omitted as you have choices here:
>
> 1) RCU
>
> Needs the proper RCU magic for the lookup and the pointer swap.
>
> That requires also a proper barrier between the assignement of the
> new id and the increment of the used count plus the corresponding one
> on the read side.
>
> 2) mutex
>
> Must be held when swapping the pointers and across lookup
>
> Same barrier requirement as RCU
>
> 3) raw_spinlock
>
> Must be held when swapping the pointers and across lookup
>
> No barriers as long as you hold the lock across the assignement and
> increment.
>
> All of that works. There is no way to make sure that a lookup is fully
> serialized against a concurrent update. Even if the lookup holds
> cpu_read_lock() the new package might arrive right after the unlock.
>
Thanks Thomas.
Andi, do you want to take a look at this?
P.
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-10 12:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-05 16:54 [PATCH v5 0/3] Fix panic in logical packages calculation Prarit Bhargava
2017-11-05 16:54 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Cache logical pkg id in uncore driver Prarit Bhargava
2017-11-07 22:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-05 16:54 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] x86/topology: Avoid wasting 128k for package id array Prarit Bhargava
2017-11-10 0:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-10 12:29 ` Prarit Bhargava [this message]
2017-11-10 12:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-10 12:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-10 15:01 ` Andi Kleen
2017-11-10 18:35 ` Prarit Bhargava
2017-11-10 19:39 ` Andi Kleen
2017-11-12 13:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-12 16:55 ` Prarit Bhargava
2017-11-10 2:42 ` [lkp-robot] [x86/topology] 4b5ebf8be9: BUG:KASAN:slab-out-of-bounds kernel test robot
2017-11-05 16:54 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] x86/smpboot: Fix __max_logical_packages estimate Prarit Bhargava
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=372083ad-2a77-4646-bc67-dd4348a521d9@redhat.com \
--to=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=he.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=minipli@googlemail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=piotr.luc@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@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®