mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
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 01:43:23 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711071729270.1716@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171105165428.32108-3-prarit@redhat.com>

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.

> +	/* 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,

	tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-10  0:43 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 [this message]
2017-11-10 12:29     ` Prarit Bhargava
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1711071729270.1716@nanos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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=prarit@redhat.com \
    --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®