From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] perf/tracing/cpuhotplug: Fix locking order
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:14:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170512161430.4a4fa278@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170512194956.GH4626@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, 12 May 2017 21:49:56 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 01:15:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 2) Allow for get_online_cpus() to nest
>
> So Thomas and me have been avoiding doing this.
>
> In general we avoid nested locking in the kernel. Nested locking makes
> an absolute mockery of locking rules and what all gets protected.
>
> Yes, its much easier.. But we managed to kill the BKL, so surely we can
> fix the hotplug lock too, right ;-)
Well, is it really a lock in that sense? Or more like a
preempt_disable()? Which, one can argue is a BKL in its own right.
get_online_cpus() is more like a preempt_disable() than a lock, as it
is preventing something from happening and not really protecting data.
preempt_disable() prevents a schedule from happening. get_online_cpus()
prevents CPUs from going offline or coming online.
Can you image the mess it would be if we prevent preempt_disable() from
nesting? get_online_cpus() is similar, but maybe not so horrific.
The problem I see with going the route of not letting get_online_cpus()
from nesting, is that we are going to have to start encapsulating large
areas where get_online_cpus() must be taken. Any time a low level
function needs to take get_online_cpus() and there happens to be a
higher level function that has a lock that also must have
get_online_cpus() held, that calls that lower level function (take
tracepoints_mutex for example), that means we need to remove the
get_online_cpus() from the lower level function, and make it a
requirement to be taken before calling that lower level function
everywhere. It moves the get_online_cpus() away from what really needs
to have protection, and makes it more into a global lock like the BKL.
Look at all the places that needed get_online_cpus() in your patches
where the function itself really didn't care about cpus going on or off
line.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-12 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-12 17:15 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] perf/tracing/cpuhotplug: Fix locking order Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 17:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] tracing: Make sure RCU is watching before calling a stack trace Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 18:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-12 18:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 18:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-12 20:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 20:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-17 16:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 17:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] cpu-hotplug: Allow get_online_cpus() to nest Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 18:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-12 18:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 18:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-12 22:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-13 0:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 17:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] kprobes: Take get_online_cpus() before taking jump_label_lock() Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-12 18:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-05-17 17:50 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2017-05-12 17:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] tracepoints: Grab get_online_cpus() before taking tracepoints_mutex Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 17:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] perf: Grab event_mutex before taking get_online_cpus() Steven Rostedt
2017-05-12 18:13 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/5] perf/tracing/cpuhotplug: Fix locking order Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-12 19:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-12 20:14 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2017-05-12 21:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-05-13 13:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-15 9:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-15 18:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-16 8:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-16 12:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-16 14:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-17 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-17 14:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-18 3:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-05-15 19:06 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20170512161430.4a4fa278@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).