From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <lenb@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] acpi : cpu hot-remove returns error number when cpu_down() fails
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:31:05 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FFA4269.5050808@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FF6B537.1030703@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hi Srivatsa,
Thank you for your reviewing.
2012/07/06 18:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 08:46 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>> Even if cpu_down() fails, acpi_processor_remove() continues to remove the cpu.
>
> Ouch!
>
>> But in this case, it should return error number since some process may run on
>> the cpu. If the cpu has a running process and the cpu is turned the power off,
>> the system cannot work well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-06-25 04:53:04.000000000 +0900
>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-05 21:02:58.711285382 +0900
>> @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ err_free_pr:
>> static int acpi_processor_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type)
>> {
>> struct acpi_processor *pr = NULL;
>> -
>> + int ret;
>>
>> if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
>> return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -621,8 +621,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_remove(struct
>> goto free;
>>
>> if (type == ACPI_BUS_REMOVAL_EJECT) {
>> - if (acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + ret = acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> acpi_processor_power_exit(pr, device);
>> @@ -841,12 +842,17 @@ static acpi_status acpi_processor_hotadd
>>
>> static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>> {
>> - if (cpu_online(pr->id))
>> - cpu_down(pr->id);
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
>> + ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>>
>
> Strictly speaking, this is not thorough enough. What prevents someone
> from onlining that same cpu again, at this point?
> So, IMHO, you need to wrap the contents of this function inside a
> get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() block, to prevent anyone else
> from messing with CPU hotplug at the same time.
If I understand your comment by mistake, please let me know.
If the contents is wrapped a inside get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() block
as below, cpu_down() will stop since cpu_down() calls cpu_hotplug_begin() and
cpu_hotplug_begin() waits for cpu_hotplug.refcount to become 0.
+ get_online_cpus()
+ if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
+ ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ }
+ put_online_cpus()
I think following patch can prevent it correctly. How about the patch?
---
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 12 ++++++++++++
kernel/cpu.c | 8 +++++---
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-09 09:59:01.280211202 +0900
+++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-09 11:05:34.559859236 +0900
@@ -844,14 +844,26 @@ static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(s
{
int ret;
+retry:
if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
if (ret)
return ret;
}
+ get_online_cpus();
+ /*
+ * Someone might online the cpu again at this point. So we check that
+ * cpu has been onlined or not. If cpu is online, we try to offline
+ * the cpu again.
+ */
+ if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
+ put_online_cpus();
+ goto retry;
+ }
arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
acpi_unmap_lsapic(pr->id);
+ put_online_cpus();
return ret;
}
#else
Index: linux-3.5-rc4/kernel/cpu.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/kernel/cpu.c 2012-07-09 09:59:01.280211202 +0900
+++ linux-3.5-rc4/kernel/cpu.c 2012-07-09 09:59:02.903190965 +0900
@@ -343,11 +343,13 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned in
unsigned long mod = tasks_frozen ? CPU_TASKS_FROZEN : 0;
struct task_struct *idle;
- if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu))
- return -EINVAL;
-
cpu_hotplug_begin();
+ if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
idle = idle_thread_get(cpu);
if (IS_ERR(idle)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(idle);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-09 2:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-06 3:16 Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-06 3:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] acpi_bus_trim() stops removing devices when failing to remove the device Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-06 9:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] acpi : cpu hot-remove returns error number when cpu_down() fails Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-09 2:31 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu [this message]
2012-07-09 11:25 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-09 21:15 ` Toshi Kani
2012-07-10 4:57 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10 7:57 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-10 8:23 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10 16:32 ` Toshi Kani
2012-07-10 0:13 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10 5:14 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10 6:52 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-10 6:51 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
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=4FFA4269.5050808@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.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
Powered by JetHome