All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] acpi : cpu hot-remove returns error number when cpu_down() fails
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:31:05 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FFA4269.5050808@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FF6B537.1030703@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hi Srivatsa,

Thank you for your reviewing.

2012/07/06 18:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 08:46 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>> Even if cpu_down() fails, acpi_processor_remove() continues to remove the cpu.
> 
> Ouch!
> 
>> But in this case, it should return error number since some process may run on
>> the cpu. If the cpu has a running process and the cpu is turned the power off,
>> the system cannot work well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c |   18 ++++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-06-25 04:53:04.000000000 +0900
>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-05 21:02:58.711285382 +0900
>> @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ err_free_pr:
>>   static int acpi_processor_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type)
>>   {
>>   	struct acpi_processor *pr = NULL;
>> -
>> +	int ret;
>>
>>   	if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -621,8 +621,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_remove(struct
>>   		goto free;
>>
>>   	if (type == ACPI_BUS_REMOVAL_EJECT) {
>> -		if (acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr))
>> -			return -EINVAL;
>> +		ret = acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>>   	}
>>
>>   	acpi_processor_power_exit(pr, device);
>> @@ -841,12 +842,17 @@ static acpi_status acpi_processor_hotadd
>>
>>   static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>>   {
>> -	if (cpu_online(pr->id))
>> -		cpu_down(pr->id);
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
>> +		ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +	}
>>
> 
> Strictly speaking, this is not thorough enough. What prevents someone
> from onlining that same cpu again, at this point?
> So, IMHO, you need to wrap the contents of this function inside a
> get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() block, to prevent anyone else
> from messing with CPU hotplug at the same time.

If I understand your comment by mistake, please let me know.
If the contents is wrapped a inside get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() block
as below, cpu_down() will stop since cpu_down() calls cpu_hotplug_begin() and
cpu_hotplug_begin() waits for cpu_hotplug.refcount to become 0.

+	get_online_cpus()
+	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
+		ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+	}
+	put_online_cpus()

I think following patch can prevent it correctly. How about the patch?

---
 drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c |   12 ++++++++++++
 kernel/cpu.c                    |    8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-09 09:59:01.280211202 +0900
+++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-09 11:05:34.559859236 +0900
@@ -844,14 +844,26 @@ static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(s
 {
 	int ret;

+retry:
 	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
 		ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
 	}

+	get_online_cpus();
+	/*
+	 * Someone might online the cpu again at this point. So we check that
+	 * cpu has been onlined or not. If cpu is online, we try to offline
+	 * the cpu again.
+	 */
+	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
+		put_online_cpus();
+		goto retry;
+	}
 	arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
 	acpi_unmap_lsapic(pr->id);
+	put_online_cpus();
 	return ret;
 }
 #else
Index: linux-3.5-rc4/kernel/cpu.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/kernel/cpu.c	2012-07-09 09:59:01.280211202 +0900
+++ linux-3.5-rc4/kernel/cpu.c	2012-07-09 09:59:02.903190965 +0900
@@ -343,11 +343,13 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned in
 	unsigned long mod = tasks_frozen ? CPU_TASKS_FROZEN : 0;
 	struct task_struct *idle;

-	if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu))
-		return -EINVAL;
-
 	cpu_hotplug_begin();

+	if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) {
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
 	idle = idle_thread_get(cpu);
 	if (IS_ERR(idle)) {
 		ret = PTR_ERR(idle);


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <lenb@kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] acpi : cpu hot-remove returns error number when cpu_down() fails
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:31:05 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FFA4269.5050808@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FF6B537.1030703@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hi Srivatsa,

Thank you for your reviewing.

2012/07/06 18:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 08:46 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>> Even if cpu_down() fails, acpi_processor_remove() continues to remove the cpu.
> 
> Ouch!
> 
>> But in this case, it should return error number since some process may run on
>> the cpu. If the cpu has a running process and the cpu is turned the power off,
>> the system cannot work well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c |   18 ++++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-06-25 04:53:04.000000000 +0900
>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-05 21:02:58.711285382 +0900
>> @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ err_free_pr:
>>   static int acpi_processor_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type)
>>   {
>>   	struct acpi_processor *pr = NULL;
>> -
>> +	int ret;
>>
>>   	if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -621,8 +621,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_remove(struct
>>   		goto free;
>>
>>   	if (type == ACPI_BUS_REMOVAL_EJECT) {
>> -		if (acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr))
>> -			return -EINVAL;
>> +		ret = acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>>   	}
>>
>>   	acpi_processor_power_exit(pr, device);
>> @@ -841,12 +842,17 @@ static acpi_status acpi_processor_hotadd
>>
>>   static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>>   {
>> -	if (cpu_online(pr->id))
>> -		cpu_down(pr->id);
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
>> +		ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +	}
>>
> 
> Strictly speaking, this is not thorough enough. What prevents someone
> from onlining that same cpu again, at this point?
> So, IMHO, you need to wrap the contents of this function inside a
> get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() block, to prevent anyone else
> from messing with CPU hotplug at the same time.

If I understand your comment by mistake, please let me know.
If the contents is wrapped a inside get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() block
as below, cpu_down() will stop since cpu_down() calls cpu_hotplug_begin() and
cpu_hotplug_begin() waits for cpu_hotplug.refcount to become 0.

+	get_online_cpus()
+	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
+		ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+	}
+	put_online_cpus()

I think following patch can prevent it correctly. How about the patch?

---
 drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c |   12 ++++++++++++
 kernel/cpu.c                    |    8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-09 09:59:01.280211202 +0900
+++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-09 11:05:34.559859236 +0900
@@ -844,14 +844,26 @@ static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(s
 {
 	int ret;

+retry:
 	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
 		ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
 	}

+	get_online_cpus();
+	/*
+	 * Someone might online the cpu again at this point. So we check that
+	 * cpu has been onlined or not. If cpu is online, we try to offline
+	 * the cpu again.
+	 */
+	if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
+		put_online_cpus();
+		goto retry;
+	}
 	arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
 	acpi_unmap_lsapic(pr->id);
+	put_online_cpus();
 	return ret;
 }
 #else
Index: linux-3.5-rc4/kernel/cpu.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/kernel/cpu.c	2012-07-09 09:59:01.280211202 +0900
+++ linux-3.5-rc4/kernel/cpu.c	2012-07-09 09:59:02.903190965 +0900
@@ -343,11 +343,13 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned in
 	unsigned long mod = tasks_frozen ? CPU_TASKS_FROZEN : 0;
 	struct task_struct *idle;

-	if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu))
-		return -EINVAL;
-
 	cpu_hotplug_begin();

+	if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) {
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
 	idle = idle_thread_get(cpu);
 	if (IS_ERR(idle)) {
 		ret = PTR_ERR(idle);


  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-09  2:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-06  3:16 [PATCH 1/2] acpi : cpu hot-remove returns error number when cpu_down() fails Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-06  3:16 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-06  3:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] acpi_bus_trim() stops removing devices when failing to remove the device Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-06  3:19   ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-06  9:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] acpi : cpu hot-remove returns error number when cpu_down() fails Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-09  2:31   ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu [this message]
2012-07-09  2:31     ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-09 11:25     ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-09 21:15       ` Toshi Kani
2012-07-10  4:57         ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10  4:57           ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10  7:57           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-10  8:23             ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10  8:23               ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10 16:32             ` Toshi Kani
2012-07-10  0:13       ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10  0:13         ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10  5:14         ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10  5:14           ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-07-10  6:52           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-10  6:51         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat

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=4FFA4269.5050808@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.