Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Fri May 02 2008 - 08:42:29 EST

Next message: Adrian Bunk: "How to reduce the number of open kernel bugs"
Previous message: Stefan Richter: "Re: Who reverted 2.6.25 - stats"
In reply to: Paul E. McKenney: "Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls"
Next in thread: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:29:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:12:34AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:02:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:17PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > Here are some (probably totally broken) ideas:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Global lock so that only one smp_call_function() in the
> > > > > system proceeds. Additional calls would be spinning with
> > > > > irqs -enabled- on the lock, avoiding deadlock. Kind of
> > > > > defeats the purpose of your list, though...
> > > >
> > > > That is what we used to do, that will obviously work. But defeats most
> > > > of the purpose, unfortunately :-)
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Maintain a global mask of current targets of smp_call_function()
> > > > > CPUs. A given CPU may proceed if it is not a current target
> > > > > and if none of its target CPUs are already in the mask.
> > > > > This mask would be manipulated under a global lock.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. As in #2 above, but use per-CPU counters. This allows the
> > > > > current CPU to proceed if it is not a target, but also allows
> > > > > concurrent smp_call_function()s to proceed even if their
> > > > > lists of target CPUs overlap.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. #2 or #3, but where CPUs can proceed freely if their allocation
> > > > > succeeded.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. If a given CPU is waiting for other CPUs to respond, it polls
> > > > > its own list (with irqs disabled), thus breaking the deadlock.
> > > > > This means that you cannot call smp_call_function() while holding
> > > > > a lock that might be acquired by the called function, but that
> > > > > is not a new prohibition -- the only safe way to hold such a
> > > > > lock is with irqs disabled, and you are not allowed to call
> > > > > the smp_call_function() with irqs disabled in the first place
> > > > > (right?).
> > > > >
> > > > > #5 might actually work...
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, #5 sounds quite promising. I'll see if I can work up a patch for
> > > > that, or if you feel so inclined, I'll definitely take patches :-)
> > > >
> > > > The branch is 'generic-ipi' on git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git
> > > > The link is pretty slow, so it's best pull'ed off of Linus base. Or just
> > > > grab the patches from the gitweb interface:
> > > >
> > > > http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/generic-ipi
> > >
> > > And here is an untested patch for getting rid of the fallback element,
> > > and eliminating the "wait" deadlocks.
> >
> > Hey this is coming along really nicely, thanks guys.
> >
> > The only problem I have with this is that if you turn IRQs off, you
> > probably don't expect call function functions to be processed under
> > you (sure that doesn't happen now, but it could if anybody actually
> > starts to call IPIs under irq off).
>
> OK -- for some reason, I was thinking that it was illegal to
> invoke smp_call_function() with irqs disabled...
>
> Ah, I see it -- smp_call_function_mask() says:
>
> * You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a
> * hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler.
>
> So we have no problem with smp_call_function, then.
>
> OK, so smp_call_function() -can- be invoked with irqs disabled?
> Hmmm... I will give this some thought.
>
> > What I _really_ wanted to do is just keep the core API as a non-deadlocky
> > one that has its data passed into it; and then implemented the fallbacky,
> > deadlocky one on top of that. In places where it makes sense, callers
> > could then use the new API if they want to.
>
> I don't believe that you can make the fallback non-deadlocky... Perhaps
> a failure of imagination on my part, of course, but I am beginning to
> doubt that...

And here is one scenario that makes me doubt that my imagination is
faulty:

1. CPU 0 disables irqs.

2. CPU 1 disables irqs.

3. CPU 0 invokes smp_call_function(). But CPU 1 will never respond
because its irqs are disabled.

4. CPU 1 invokes smp_call_function(). But CPU 0 will never respond
because its irqs are disabled.

Looks like inherent deadlock to me, requiring that smp_call_function()
be invoked with irqs enabled.

So, what am I missing here?

Thanx, Paul

> > We could make another rule that smp_call_function might also run functions,
> > but IMO that is starting to turn into spaghetti ;) Clever spaghetti though,
> > I give you that!
>
> Well, given that you cannot call smp_call_function_mask() with irqs
> disabled, my approach -does- work in that case, as an irq might come
> in just after you called the function but before irqs were disabled.
>
> So, how many places is smp_call_function() invoked with irqs disabled?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > smp.c | 80 +++++++++++-------------------------------------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> > > index 36d3eca..9df96fa 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/smp.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> > > @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(call_function_lock);
> > > enum {
> > > CSD_FLAG_WAIT = 0x01,
> > > CSD_FLAG_ALLOC = 0x02,
> > > - CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK = 0x04,
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct call_function_data {
> > > @@ -33,9 +32,6 @@ struct call_single_queue {
> > > spinlock_t lock;
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_function_data, cfd_fallback);
> > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cfd_fallback_used);
> > > -
> > > void __cpuinit init_call_single_data(void)
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > > @@ -59,6 +55,7 @@ static void csd_flag_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
> > > if (!(data->flags & CSD_FLAG_WAIT))
> > > break;
> > > cpu_relax();
> > > + generic_smp_call_function_interrupt();
> > > } while (1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -84,48 +81,13 @@ static void generic_exec_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data)
> > > csd_flag_wait(data);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/*
> > > - * We need to have a global per-cpu fallback of call_function_data, so
> > > - * we can safely proceed with smp_call_function() if dynamic allocation
> > > - * fails and we cannot fall back to on-stack allocation (if wait == 0).
> > > - */
> > > -static noinline void acquire_cpu_fallback(int cpu)
> > > -{
> > > - while (test_and_set_bit_lock(0, &per_cpu(cfd_fallback_used, cpu)))
> > > - cpu_relax();
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > -static noinline void free_cpu_fallback(struct call_single_data *csd)
> > > -{
> > > - struct call_function_data *data;
> > > - int cpu;
> > > -
> > > - data = container_of(csd, struct call_function_data, csd);
> > > -
> > > - /*
> > > - * We could drop this loop by embedding a cpu variable in
> > > - * csd, but this should happen so extremely rarely (if ever)
> > > - * that this seems like a better idea
> > > - */
> > > - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > - if (&per_cpu(cfd_fallback, cpu) != data)
> > > - continue;
> > > -
> > > - clear_bit_unlock(0, &per_cpu(cfd_fallback_used, cpu));
> > > - break;
> > > - }
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > static void rcu_free_call_data(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > {
> > > struct call_function_data *data;
> > >
> > > data = container_of(head, struct call_function_data, rcu_head);
> > >
> > > - if (data->csd.flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC)
> > > - kfree(data);
> > > - else
> > > - free_cpu_fallback(&data->csd);
> > > + kfree(data);
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -222,8 +184,6 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> > > data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> > > } else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC)
> > > kfree(data);
> > > - else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK)
> > > - free_cpu_fallback(data);
> > > }
> > > /*
> > > * See comment on outer loop
> > > @@ -244,6 +204,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> > > int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
> > > int retry, int wait)
> > > {
> > > + struct call_single_data d = NULL;
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > > /* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */
> > > int me = get_cpu();
> > > @@ -258,21 +219,14 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
> > > } else {
> > > struct call_single_data *data;
> > >
> > > - if (wait) {
> > > - struct call_single_data d;
> > > -
> > > - data = &d;
> > > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> > > - } else {
> > > + if (!wait) {
> > > data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > if (data)
> > > data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
> > > - else {
> > > - acquire_cpu_fallback(me);
> > > -
> > > - data = &per_cpu(cfd_fallback, me).csd;
> > > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK;
> > > - }
> > > + }
> > > + if (!data) {
> > > + data = &d;
> > > + data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> > > }
> > >
> > > data->func = func;
> > > @@ -320,6 +274,7 @@ void __smp_call_function_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data)
> > > int smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *), void *info,
> > > int wait)
> > > {
> > > + struct call_function_data d;
> > > struct call_function_data *data;
> > > cpumask_t allbutself;
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > > @@ -345,21 +300,14 @@ int smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *), void *info,
> > > return smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info, 0, wait);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (wait) {
> > > - struct call_function_data d;
> > > -
> > > - data = &d;
> > > - data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> > > - } else {
> > > + if (!wait) {
> > > data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > if (data)
> > > data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
> > > - else {
> > > - acquire_cpu_fallback(cpu);
> > > -
> > > - data = &per_cpu(cfd_fallback, cpu);
> > > - data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK;
> > > - }
> > > + }
> > > + if (!data) {
> > > + data = &d;
> > > + data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> > > }
> > >
> > > spin_lock_init(&data->lock);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Adrian Bunk: "How to reduce the number of open kernel bugs"
Previous message: Stefan Richter: "Re: Who reverted 2.6.25 - stats"
In reply to: Paul E. McKenney: "Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls"
Next in thread: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]