From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1423502AbcB0LcN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:32:13 -0500
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:35634 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756335AbcB0LcK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:32:10 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:30:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@mit.edu>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 20/20] rcu: Make CPU_DYING_IDLE an explicit call
In-Reply-To: <20160227110528.GR3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602271228570.3638@nanos>
References: <20160226164321.657646833@linutronix.de> <20160226182341.870167933@linutronix.de> <20160227021429.GN3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160227022308.GA3959@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602270840510.3638@nanos>
 <20160227110528.GR3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 08:47:41AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > > > > @@ -762,6 +762,7 @@ void cpuhp_report_idle_dead(void)
> > > > >  	BUG_ON(st->state != CPUHP_AP_OFFLINE);
> > > > >  	st->state = CPUHP_AP_IDLE_DEAD;
> > > > >  	complete(&st->done);
> > > > 
> > > > What prevents the other CPU from killing this CPU at this point, so
> > > > that this CPU does not tell RCU that it is dead?
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the odds should be low, but there are all manner of things
> > > > that might delay a CPU for just a little bit too long...
> > > > 
> > > > Or am I missing something subtle here?
> > 
> > No. The reason why I moved the rcu call past the complete is, that otherwise
> > complete() complains about rcu being dead already. Hmm, but you are right. In
> > theory the other side could allow physical removal before it actually told rcu
> > that it's gone.
> 
> There is one case where this is OK, and that is where the outgoing CPU
> puts itself to sleep (or whatever) without help from the other CPU.

That's the case. It's the last call before the outgoing CPU goes into
arch_cpu_idle_dead(). There is no involvement of the controlling CPU at this
point. It just wants to know, that the outgoing one is dead finally.

Thanks,

	tglx