On 07/12/2012 05:10 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> Even if acpi_processor_handle_eject() offlines cpu, there is a chance
> to online the cpu after that. So the patch closes the window by using
> get/put_online_cpus().
>
> Why does the patch change _cpu_up() logic?
>
> The patch cares the race of hot-remove cpu and _cpu_up(). If the patch
> does not change it, there is the following race.
>
> hot-remove cpu | _cpu_up()
> ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
> call acpi_processor_handle_eject() |
> call cpu_down() |
> call get_online_cpus() |
> | call cpu_hotplug_begin() and stop
> here
> call arch_unregister_cpu() |
> call acpi_unmap_lsapic() |
> call put_online_cpus() |
> | start and continue _cpu_up()
> return acpi_processor_remove() |
> continue hot-remove the cpu |
>
> So _cpu_up() can continue to itself. And hot-remove cpu can also continue
> itself. If the patch changes _cpu_up() logic, the race disappears as below:
>
> hot-remove cpu | _cpu_up()
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> call acpi_processor_handle_eject() |
> call cpu_down() |
> call get_online_cpus() |
> | call cpu_hotplug_begin() and stop
> here
> call arch_unregister_cpu() |
> call acpi_unmap_lsapic() |
> cpu's cpu_present is set |
> to false by set_cpu_present()|
> call put_online_cpus() |
> | start _cpu_up()
> | check cpu_present() and return
> -EINVAL
> return acpi_processor_remove() |
> continue hot-remove the cpu |
>
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com>
>
Please consider fixing the grammar issue below (since it is a user-visible
print statement). Other than that, everything looks fine.
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> kernel/cpu.c | 8 +++++---
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-3.5-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.5-rc6.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-12
> 20:34:29.438289841 +0900
> +++ linux-3.5-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-12
> 20:39:29.190542257 +0900
> @@ -850,8 +850,22 @@ static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(s
> return ret;
> }
>
> + get_online_cpus();
> + /*
> + * The cpu might become online again at this point. So we check whether
> + * the cpu has been onlined or not. If the cpu became online, it means
> + * that someone wants to use the cpu. So acpi_processor_handle_eject()
> + * returns -EAGAIN.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(cpu_online(pr->id))) {
> + put_online_cpus();
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "Failed to remove CPU %d, "
> + "since someone onlines the cpu\n" , pr->id);
How about:
"Failed to remove CPU %d, because some other task brought the CPU back online\n"
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> + return -EAGAIN;
> + }
> arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
> acpi_unmap_lsapic(pr->id);
> + put_online_cpus();
> return ret;
> }
> #else
> Index: linux-3.5-rc6/kernel/cpu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.5-rc6.orig/kernel/cpu.c 2012-07-12 20:34:29.438289841 +0900
> +++ linux-3.5-rc6/kernel/cpu.c 2012-07-12 20:34:35.040219535 +0900
> @@ -343,11 +343,13 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned in
> unsigned long mod = tasks_frozen ? CPU_TASKS_FROZEN : 0;
> struct task_struct *idle;
>
> - if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu))
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> cpu_hotplug_begin();
>
> + if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> idle = idle_thread_get(cpu);
> if (IS_ERR(idle)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(idle);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
