From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] smp: Run functions concurrently in smp_call_function_many()
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:51:59 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907222045101.1659@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <91940019-826C-4F33-904B-0767D95A5E21@vmware.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1919 bytes --]
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:58:29PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Call a function on all processors. May be used during early boot while
> >>> + * early_boot_irqs_disabled is set.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static inline void on_each_cpu(smp_call_func_t func, void *info, int wait)
> >>> +{
> >>> + on_each_cpu_mask(cpu_online_mask, func, info, wait);
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> I'm thinking that one if buggy, nothing protects online mask here.
> >
> > The current implementation has preemption disabled before touching
> > cpu_online_mask which at least protects against a CPU going away as that
> > prevents the stomp machine thread from getting on the CPU. But it's not
> > protected against a CPU coming online concurrently.
>
> I still don’t understand. If you called cpu_online_mask() and did not
> disable preemption before calling it, you are already (today) not protected
> against another CPU coming online. Disabling preemption in on_each_cpu()
> will not solve it.
Disabling preemption _cannot_ protect against a CPU coming online. It only
can protect against a CPU being offlined.
The current implementation of on_each_cpu() disables preemption _before_
touching cpu_online_mask.
void on_each_cpu(void (*func) (void *info), void *info, int wait)
{
unsigned long flags;
preempt_disable();
smp_call_function(func, info, wait);
smp_call_function() has another preempt_disable as it can be called
separately and it does:
preempt_disable();
smp_call_function_many(cpu_online_mask, func, info, wait);
Your new on_each_cpu() implementation does not. So there is a
difference. Whether it matters or not is a different question, but that
needs to be explained and documented.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-22 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-19 0:58 [PATCH v3 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] smp: Run functions concurrently in smp_call_function_many() Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 18:23 ` Dave Hansen
2019-07-22 18:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 18:41 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-22 19:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 18:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 18:34 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-22 19:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 18:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-22 18:40 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-22 18:51 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2019-07-22 19:02 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-25 12:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-25 19:10 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] x86/mm/tlb: Remove reason as argument for flush_tlb_func_local() Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] x86/mm/tlb: Open-code on_each_cpu_cond_mask() for tlb_is_not_lazy() Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 18:36 ` Dave Hansen
2019-07-19 18:41 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 22:44 ` Joe Perches
2019-07-19 23:02 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-22 18:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 19:47 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-07-22 19:51 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Nadav Amit
2019-07-22 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 19:27 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-22 19:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 7:28 ` Juergen Gross
2019-07-31 0:13 ` Michael Kelley
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] x86/mm/tlb: Privatize cpu_tlbstate Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 18:38 ` Dave Hansen
2019-07-19 18:43 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 18:48 ` Dave Hansen
2019-07-19 18:54 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-20 13:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-21 20:21 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] x86/mm/tlb: Do not make is_lazy dirty for no reason Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] cpumask: Mark functions as pure Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] x86/mm/tlb: Remove UV special case Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 2:25 ` Mike Travis
2019-07-19 4:58 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-31 3:11 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 0:58 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] x86/mm/tlb: Remove unnecessary uses of the inline keyword Nadav Amit
2019-07-19 21:36 ` [PATCH v3 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes Dave Hansen
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=alpine.DEB.2.21.1907222045101.1659@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).