On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 13:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > >This adds kernel/smp.c which contains helpers for IPI function calls. In > > > > >addition to supporting the existing smp_call_function() in a more efficient > > > > >manner, it also adds a more scalable variant called > > > > >smp_call_function_single() > > > > >for calling a given function on a single CPU only. > > > > > > > > > >The core of this is based on the x86-64 patch from Nick Piggin, lots of > > > > >changes since then. "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@xxxxxx> has > > > > >contributed lots of fixes and suggestions as well. > > > > > > > > > >+int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void > > > > >*info, > > > > >+ int retry, int wait) > > > > >+{ > > > > >+ unsigned long flags; > > > > >+ /* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */ > > > > >+ int me = get_cpu(); > > > > >+ int ret = 0; > > > > >+ > > > > >+ /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */ > > > > >+ WARN_ON(wait && irqs_disabled()); > > > > >+ > > > > >+ if (cpu == me) { > > > > >+ local_irq_save(flags); > > > > >+ func(info); > > > > >+ local_irq_restore(flags); > > > > >+ } else { > > > > >+ struct call_single_data d; > > > > >+ struct call_single_data *data; > > > > >+ > > > > >+ if (!wait) { > > > > >+ data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > >+ if (unlikely(!data)) { > > > > >+ ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > >+ goto out; > > > > >+ } > > > > >+ data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC; > > > > >+ } else { > > > > >+ data = &d; > > > > >+ data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > > > > >+ } > > > > >+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of introducing a rare error case, how about falling back to the > > > > wait case if the allocation fails? > > > > > > > > Of course, if the called function relies on the calling cpu doing > > > > something else, then this fails, but I don't think anybody would do > > > > that? On the other hand, there is at least one use of > > > > smp_call_function_single() with !wait, which doesn't check the error return. > > > > > > Sure, either failling back to waiting, or add a static call_single_data > > > like it exists for smp_call_function(). In reality it'll never happen, > > > so the fallback static structure appeals the most to me. > > > > We don't need any extra statically allocated data, we can just reuse the > > 'csd' element of the existing call_data_fallback. So that is what I did. > > Once all archs are converted, we can now change > > smp_call_function_single() to a void return, as it always succeeds now. > > Introducing this fallback will make any usage from irq disabled context > deadlock prone. > > I rather like the current interface. Hmm good point, I'll back that bit out again. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html