From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:10:27 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ppdweg5g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140825105555.21089.99958.stgit@kbuild-fedora.novalocal>
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> writes:
> Remove stop_machine from module unloading by replacing module_ref
> with atomic_t. Note that this can cause a performance regression
> on big-SMP machine by direct memory access. For those machines,
> you can lockdwon all modules. Since the lockdown skips reference
> counting, it'll be more scalable than per-cpu module_ref counters.
Sorry for the delay; I didn't get to this before I left, and then
I was away for 3 weeks vacation.
First, I agree you should drop the MODULE_STATE_LOCKUP patch. While I
can't audit every try_module_get() call, I did put an mdelay(100) in
there and did a quick boot for any obvious slowdown.
Second, this patch should be split into two parts. The first would
simply replace module_ref with atomic_t (a significant simplification),
the second would get rid of stop machine.
> +/*
> + * MODULE_REF_BASE must be 1, since we use atomic_inc_not_zero() for
> + * recovering refcnt (see try_release_module_ref() ).
> + */
> +#define MODULE_REF_BASE 1
True, but we could use atomic_add_unless() instead, and make this
completely generic, right?
> +
> /* Init the unload section of the module. */
> static int module_unload_init(struct module *mod)
> {
> - mod->refptr = alloc_percpu(struct module_ref);
> - if (!mod->refptr)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + /*
> + * Initialize reference counter to MODULE_REF_BASE.
> + * refcnt == 0 means module is going.
> + */
> + atomic_set(&mod->refcnt, MODULE_REF_BASE);
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mod->source_list);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mod->target_list);
>
> /* Hold reference count during initialization. */
> - raw_cpu_write(mod->refptr->incs, 1);
> + atomic_inc(&mod->refcnt);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -721,8 +728,6 @@ static void module_unload_free(struct module *mod)
> kfree(use);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> -
> - free_percpu(mod->refptr);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD
> @@ -740,60 +745,38 @@ static inline int try_force_unload(unsigned int flags)
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD */
>
> -struct stopref
> +/* Try to release refcount of module, 0 means success. */
> +static int try_release_module_ref(struct module *mod)
> {
> - struct module *mod;
> - int flags;
> - int *forced;
> -};
> + int ret;
>
> -/* Whole machine is stopped with interrupts off when this runs. */
> -static int __try_stop_module(void *_sref)
> -{
> - struct stopref *sref = _sref;
> + /* Try to decrement refcnt which we set at loading */
> + ret = atomic_sub_return(MODULE_REF_BASE, &mod->refcnt);
> + if (ret)
> + /* Someone can put this right now, recover with checking */
> + ret = atomic_inc_not_zero(&mod->refcnt);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
This is very clever! I really like it.
Thanks,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-13 5:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-25 10:55 [RFC PATCH 0/5] " Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-25 10:55 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] module: Wait for RCU synchronizing before releasing a module Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-25 10:55 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] module: Unlink module with RCU synchronizing instead of stop_machine Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-25 10:55 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] lib/bug: Use RCU list ops for module_bug_list Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-25 10:55 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] module: Lock up a module when loading with a LOCLUP flag Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-26 5:30 ` Lucas De Marchi
2014-08-26 9:26 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-26 12:04 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] kmod: Support lockup option to make module un-removable Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-26 12:04 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] libkmod: support lockup module option Masami Hiramatsu
2014-08-26 12:04 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] modprobe: Add --lockup option to make module unremovable Masami Hiramatsu
2014-09-01 22:17 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] kmod: Support lockup option to make module un-removable Lucas De Marchi
2014-10-13 4:41 ` Rusty Russell
2014-08-25 10:55 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading Masami Hiramatsu
2014-10-13 4:40 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2014-10-21 10:34 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-10-22 4:25 ` Rusty Russell
2014-10-21 11:27 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-09-03 3:11 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] " Masami Hiramatsu
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=87ppdweg5g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.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