Re: [PATCH v2 29/45] kvm/vmx: Use get/put_online_cpus_atomic() to prevent CPU offline

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

Il 26/06/2013 10:06, Srivatsa S. Bhat ha scritto:
> On 06/26/2013 01:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 25/06/2013 22:30, Srivatsa S. Bhat ha scritto:
>>> -	cpu = get_cpu();
>>> +	cpu = get_online_cpus_atomic();
>>>  	vmx_vcpu_load(&vmx->vcpu, cpu);
>>>  	vmx->vcpu.cpu = cpu;
>>>  	err = vmx_vcpu_setup(vmx);
>>>  	vmx_vcpu_put(&vmx->vcpu);
>>> -	put_cpu();
>>> +	put_online_cpus_atomic();
>>
>> The new API has a weird name.  Why are you adding new functions instead
>> of just modifying get/put_cpu?
>>
> 
> Because the purpose of those two functions are distinctly different
> from each other.
> 
> get/put_cpu() is used to disable preemption on the local CPU. (Which
> also disables offlining the local CPU during that critical section).

Ok, then I understood correctly... and I acked the other KVM patch.

However, keeping the code on the local CPU is exactly the point of this
particular use of get_cpu()/put_cpu().  Why does it need to synchronize
with offlining of other CPUs?

Paolo

> What this patchset deals with is synchronizing with offline of *any*
> CPU. Typically, we use get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() for that
> purpose. But they can't be used in atomic context, because they take
> mutex locks and hence can sleep.
> 
> So the code that executes in atomic context and which wants to prevent
> *any* CPU from going offline, used to disable preemption around its
> critical section. Disabling preemption prevents stop_machine(), and
> CPU offline (of *any* CPU) was done via stop_machine(). So disabling
> preemption disabled any CPU from going offline, as a *side-effect*.
> 
> And this patchset prepares the ground for getting rid of stop_machine()
> in the CPU offline path. Which means, disabling preemption only prevents
> the *local* CPU from going offline. So if code in atomic context wants
> to prevent any CPU from going offline, we need a new set of APIs, like
> get/put_online_cpus(), but which can be invoked from atomic context.
> That's why I named it as get/put_online_cpus_atomic().
> 
> One of the key points here is that we want to preserve get/put_cpu()
> as it is, since its purpose is different - disable preemption and
> offline of the local CPU. There is no reason to change that API, its
> useful as it is.