Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPUoffline from atomic context

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Wed Dec 19 2012 - 14:20:50 EST

On 12/19, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> BTW, there is a small problem with the synchronize_sched() approach:
> We can't generalize the synchronization scheme as a generic percpu rwlock
> because the writer's role is split into 2, the first part (the one having
> synchronize_sched()) which should be run in process context, and the
> second part (the rest of it), which can be run in atomic context.


> That is, needing the writer to be able to sleep (due to synchronize_sched())
> will make the locking scheme unusable (in other usecases) I think. And
> the split (blocking and non-blocking part) itself seems hard to express
> as a single writer API.

I do not think this is the problem.

We need 2 helpers for writer, the 1st one does synchronize_sched() and the
2nd one takes rwlock. A generic percpu_write_lock() simply calls them both.

In fact I think that the 1st helper should not do synchronize_sched(),
and (say) cpu_hotplug_begin() should call it itself. Because if we also
change cpu_hotplug_begin() to use percpu_rw_sem we do not want to do
synchronize_sched() twice. But lets ignore this for now.


> Hmmm.. so what do we do? Shall we say "We anyway have to do smp_rmb() in the
> reader in the fast path. Instead let's do a full smp_mb() and get rid of
> the synchronize_sched() in the writer, and thereby expose this synchronization
> scheme as generic percpu rwlocks?" Or should we rather use synchronize_sched()
> and keep this synchronization scheme restricted to CPU hotplug only?

Oh, I do not know ;)

To me, the main question is: can we use synchronize_sched() in cpu_down?
It is slow.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at