Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] x86: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code
From: Boris Ostrovsky
Date: Wed Mar 04 2015 - 09:57:55 EST
On 03/04/2015 09:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
- cpu_die_common(cpu);
+ (void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
+ /* FIXME: Are the below calls really safe in case of timeout? */
Not for HVM guests (PV guests will only reach this point after
target cpu has been marked as down by the hypervisor).
We need at least to have a message similar to what native_cpu_die()
prints on cpu_wait_death() failure. And I think we should not call
the two routines below (three, actually --- there is also
xen_teardown_timer() below, which is not part of the diff).
-boris
xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
So something like this, then?
if (cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5)) {
xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
xen_teardown_timer(cpu);
}
else
pr_err("CPU %u didn't die...\n", cpu);
Easy change for me to make if so!
Or do I need some other check for HVM-vs.-PV guests, and, if so, what
would that check be? And also if so, is it OK to online a PV guest's
CPU that timed out during its previous offline?
I believe PV VCPUs will always be CPU_DEAD by the time we get here
since we are (indirectly) waiting for this in the loop at the
beginning of xen_cpu_die():
'while (xen_pv_domain() && HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_is_up, cpu,
NULL))' will exit only after 'HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_down,
smp_processor_id()' in xen_play_dead(). Which happens after
play_dead_common() has marked the cpu as CPU_DEAD.
So no test is needed.
OK, so I have the following patch on top of my previous patch, which
I will merge if testing goes well. So if a CPU times out going offline,
the above three functions will not be called, the "didn't die" message
will be printed, and any future attempt to online that CPU will fail.
Is that the correct semantics?
Yes.
I am not sure whether not ever onlining the CPU is the best outcome
but then I don't think trying to online it again with all interrupts
and such still set up will work well. And it's an improvement over
what we have now anyway (with current code we may clean up things
for a non-dead cpu).
Another strategy is to key off of the return value of cpu_check_up_prepare().
If it returns -EBUSY, then the outgoing CPU finished up after the
surviving CPU timed out. The CPU trying to bring the new CPU online
could (in theory, anyway) do the xen_smp_intr_free(), xen_uninit_lock_cpu(),
and xen_teardown_timer() at that point.
And the code for this, in xen_cpu_up(), might look something like the
following:
rc = cpu_check_up_prepare(cpu);
if (rc && rc != -EBUSY)
return rc;
if (rc == EBUSY) {
xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
xen_teardown_timer(cpu);
}
The idea is that we detect when the CPU eventually took itself offline,
but only did so after the surviving CPU timed out. (Of course, it
would probably be best to put those three statements into a small
function that is called from both places.)
I have no idea whether this approach would really work, especially given
your earlier statement that CPU_DEAD happens early on. But in case it
is helpful or sparks some better idea.
Let me test this, I think it may work.
In the meantime, it turned out that HVM guests are broken by this patch
(with our without changes that we've been discussing), because HVM CPUs
die with
static void xen_hvm_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
xen_cpu_die(cpu);
native_cpu_die(cpu);
}
Which means that cpu_wait_death() is called twice, and second call moves
the CPU to CPU_BROKEN.
The simple solution is to stop calling native_cpu_die() above but I'd
like to use common code in native_cpu_die(). I'll see if I can carve it
out without too much damage to x86.
Thanks.
-boris
Thanx, Paul
But I must defer to you on this sort of thing.
Thanx, Paul
Thanks.
-boris
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
index e2c7389c58c5..f2a06ff0614d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
@@ -508,12 +508,13 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
- (void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
- /* FIXME: Are the below calls really safe in case of timeout? */
-
- xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
- xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
- xen_teardown_timer(cpu);
+ if (cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5)) {
+ xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
+ xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
+ xen_teardown_timer(cpu);
+ } else {
+ pr_err("CPU %u didn't die...\n", cpu);
+ }
}
static void xen_play_dead(void) /* used only with HOTPLUG_CPU */
--
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/