On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:29:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:12:34AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:02:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:17PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > Here are some (probably totally broken) ideas: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Global lock so that only one smp_call_function() in the > > > > > system proceeds. Additional calls would be spinning with > > > > > irqs -enabled- on the lock, avoiding deadlock. Kind of > > > > > defeats the purpose of your list, though... > > > > > > > > That is what we used to do, that will obviously work. But defeats most > > > > of the purpose, unfortunately :-) > > > > > > > > > 2. Maintain a global mask of current targets of smp_call_function() > > > > > CPUs. A given CPU may proceed if it is not a current target > > > > > and if none of its target CPUs are already in the mask. > > > > > This mask would be manipulated under a global lock. > > > > > > > > > > 3. As in #2 above, but use per-CPU counters. This allows the > > > > > current CPU to proceed if it is not a target, but also allows > > > > > concurrent smp_call_function()s to proceed even if their > > > > > lists of target CPUs overlap. > > > > > > > > > > 4. #2 or #3, but where CPUs can proceed freely if their allocation > > > > > succeeded. > > > > > > > > > > 5. If a given CPU is waiting for other CPUs to respond, it polls > > > > > its own list (with irqs disabled), thus breaking the deadlock. > > > > > This means that you cannot call smp_call_function() while holding > > > > > a lock that might be acquired by the called function, but that > > > > > is not a new prohibition -- the only safe way to hold such a > > > > > lock is with irqs disabled, and you are not allowed to call > > > > > the smp_call_function() with irqs disabled in the first place > > > > > (right?). > > > > > > > > > > #5 might actually work... > > > > > > > > Yeah, #5 sounds quite promising. I'll see if I can work up a patch for > > > > that, or if you feel so inclined, I'll definitely take patches :-) > > > > > > > > The branch is 'generic-ipi' on git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git > > > > The link is pretty slow, so it's best pull'ed off of Linus base. Or just > > > > grab the patches from the gitweb interface: > > > > > > > > http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/generic-ipi > > > > > > And here is an untested patch for getting rid of the fallback element, > > > and eliminating the "wait" deadlocks. > > > > Hey this is coming along really nicely, thanks guys. > > > > The only problem I have with this is that if you turn IRQs off, you > > probably don't expect call function functions to be processed under > > you (sure that doesn't happen now, but it could if anybody actually > > starts to call IPIs under irq off). > > OK -- for some reason, I was thinking that it was illegal to > invoke smp_call_function() with irqs disabled... > > Ah, I see it -- smp_call_function_mask() says: > > * You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a > * hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler. > > So we have no problem with smp_call_function, then. > > OK, so smp_call_function() -can- be invoked with irqs disabled? > Hmmm... I will give this some thought. > > > What I _really_ wanted to do is just keep the core API as a non-deadlocky > > one that has its data passed into it; and then implemented the fallbacky, > > deadlocky one on top of that. In places where it makes sense, callers > > could then use the new API if they want to. > > I don't believe that you can make the fallback non-deadlocky... Perhaps > a failure of imagination on my part, of course, but I am beginning to > doubt that... And here is one scenario that makes me doubt that my imagination is faulty: 1. CPU 0 disables irqs. 2. CPU 1 disables irqs. 3. CPU 0 invokes smp_call_function(). But CPU 1 will never respond because its irqs are disabled. 4. CPU 1 invokes smp_call_function(). But CPU 0 will never respond because its irqs are disabled. Looks like inherent deadlock to me, requiring that smp_call_function() be invoked with irqs enabled. So, what am I missing here? Thanx, Paul > > We could make another rule that smp_call_function might also run functions, > > but IMO that is starting to turn into spaghetti ;) Clever spaghetti though, > > I give you that! > > Well, given that you cannot call smp_call_function_mask() with irqs > disabled, my approach -does- work in that case, as an irq might come > in just after you called the function but before irqs were disabled. > > So, how many places is smp_call_function() invoked with irqs disabled? > > Thanx, Paul > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > smp.c | 80 +++++++++++------------------------------------------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c > > > index 36d3eca..9df96fa 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/smp.c > > > +++ b/kernel/smp.c > > > @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(call_function_lock); > > > enum { > > > CSD_FLAG_WAIT = 0x01, > > > CSD_FLAG_ALLOC = 0x02, > > > - CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK = 0x04, > > > }; > > > > > > struct call_function_data { > > > @@ -33,9 +32,6 @@ struct call_single_queue { > > > spinlock_t lock; > > > }; > > > > > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_function_data, cfd_fallback); > > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cfd_fallback_used); > > > - > > > void __cpuinit init_call_single_data(void) > > > { > > > int i; > > > @@ -59,6 +55,7 @@ static void csd_flag_wait(struct call_single_data *data) > > > if (!(data->flags & CSD_FLAG_WAIT)) > > > break; > > > cpu_relax(); > > > + generic_smp_call_function_interrupt(); > > > } while (1); > > > } > > > > > > @@ -84,48 +81,13 @@ static void generic_exec_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data) > > > csd_flag_wait(data); > > > } > > > > > > -/* > > > - * We need to have a global per-cpu fallback of call_function_data, so > > > - * we can safely proceed with smp_call_function() if dynamic allocation > > > - * fails and we cannot fall back to on-stack allocation (if wait == 0). > > > - */ > > > -static noinline void acquire_cpu_fallback(int cpu) > > > -{ > > > - while (test_and_set_bit_lock(0, &per_cpu(cfd_fallback_used, cpu))) > > > - cpu_relax(); > > > -} > > > - > > > -static noinline void free_cpu_fallback(struct call_single_data *csd) > > > -{ > > > - struct call_function_data *data; > > > - int cpu; > > > - > > > - data = container_of(csd, struct call_function_data, csd); > > > - > > > - /* > > > - * We could drop this loop by embedding a cpu variable in > > > - * csd, but this should happen so extremely rarely (if ever) > > > - * that this seems like a better idea > > > - */ > > > - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { > > > - if (&per_cpu(cfd_fallback, cpu) != data) > > > - continue; > > > - > > > - clear_bit_unlock(0, &per_cpu(cfd_fallback_used, cpu)); > > > - break; > > > - } > > > -} > > > - > > > static void rcu_free_call_data(struct rcu_head *head) > > > { > > > struct call_function_data *data; > > > > > > data = container_of(head, struct call_function_data, rcu_head); > > > > > > - if (data->csd.flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC) > > > - kfree(data); > > > - else > > > - free_cpu_fallback(&data->csd); > > > + kfree(data); > > > } > > > > > > /* > > > @@ -222,8 +184,6 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void) > > > data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > > > } else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC) > > > kfree(data); > > > - else if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK) > > > - free_cpu_fallback(data); > > > } > > > /* > > > * See comment on outer loop > > > @@ -244,6 +204,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void) > > > int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info, > > > int retry, int wait) > > > { > > > + struct call_single_data d = NULL; > > > unsigned long flags; > > > /* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */ > > > int me = get_cpu(); > > > @@ -258,21 +219,14 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info, > > > } else { > > > struct call_single_data *data; > > > > > > - if (wait) { > > > - struct call_single_data d; > > > - > > > - data = &d; > > > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > > > - } else { > > > + if (!wait) { > > > data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC); > > > if (data) > > > data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC; > > > - else { > > > - acquire_cpu_fallback(me); > > > - > > > - data = &per_cpu(cfd_fallback, me).csd; > > > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK; > > > - } > > > + } > > > + if (!data) { > > > + data = &d; > > > + data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > > > } > > > > > > data->func = func; > > > @@ -320,6 +274,7 @@ void __smp_call_function_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data) > > > int smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *), void *info, > > > int wait) > > > { > > > + struct call_function_data d; > > > struct call_function_data *data; > > > cpumask_t allbutself; > > > unsigned long flags; > > > @@ -345,21 +300,14 @@ int smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *), void *info, > > > return smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info, 0, wait); > > > } > > > > > > - if (wait) { > > > - struct call_function_data d; > > > - > > > - data = &d; > > > - data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > > > - } else { > > > + if (!wait) { > > > data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC); > > > if (data) > > > data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC; > > > - else { > > > - acquire_cpu_fallback(cpu); > > > - > > > - data = &per_cpu(cfd_fallback, cpu); > > > - data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_FALLBACK; > > > - } > > > + } > > > + if (!data) { > > > + data = &d; > > > + data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT; > > > } > > > > > > spin_lock_init(&data->lock); -- 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