On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:03:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > +static inline void get_online_cpus(void)
> > +{
> > + might_sleep();
> > +
> > + if (current->cpuhp_ref++) {
> > + barrier();
> > + return;
>
> I don't undestand this barrier()... we are going to return if we already
> hold the lock, do we really need it?
>
> The same for put_online_cpus().
The barrier() is needed because of the possibility of inlining, right?
> > +void __get_online_cpus(void)
> > {
> > - if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> > + if (cpuhp_writer_task == current)
> > return;
>
> Probably it would be better to simply inc/dec ->cpuhp_ref in
> cpu_hotplug_begin/end and remove this check here and in
> __put_online_cpus().
>
> This also means that the writer doing get/put_online_cpus() will
> always use the fast path, and __cpuhp_writer can go away,
> cpuhp_writer_task != NULL can be used instead.
I would need to see the code for this change to be sure. ;-)
> > + atomic_inc(&cpuhp_waitcount);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We either call schedule() in the wait, or we'll fall through
> > + * and reschedule on the preempt_enable() in get_online_cpus().
> > + */
> > + preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > + wait_event(cpuhp_wq, !__cpuhp_writer);
> > + preempt_disable();
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * It would be possible for cpu_hotplug_done() to complete before
> > + * the atomic_inc() above; in which case there is no writer waiting
> > + * and doing a wakeup would be BAD (tm).
> > + *
> > + * If however we still observe cpuhp_writer_task here we know
> > + * cpu_hotplug_done() is currently stuck waiting for cpuhp_waitcount.
> > + */
> > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&cpuhp_waitcount) && cpuhp_writer_task)
> > + cpuhp_writer_wake();
>
> cpuhp_writer_wake() here and in __put_online_cpus() looks racy...
> Not only cpuhp_writer_wake() can hit cpuhp_writer_task == NULL (we need
> something like ACCESS_ONCE()), its task_struct can be already freed/reused
> if the writer exits.
>
> And I don't really understand the logic... This slow path succeds without
> incrementing any counter (except current->cpuhp_ref)? How the next writer
> can notice the fact it should wait for this reader?
>
> > void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
> > {
> > - cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
> > - mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + /* Signal the writer is done */
> > + cpuhp_writer = 0;
> > + wake_up_all(&cpuhp_wq);
> > +
> > + /* Wait for any pending readers to be running */
> > + cpuhp_writer_wait(!atomic_read(&cpuhp_waitcount));
> > + cpuhp_writer_task = NULL;
>
> We also need to ensure that the next reader should see all changes
> done by the writer, iow this lacks "realease" semantics.
Good point -- I was expecting wake_up_all() to provide the release
semantics, but code could be reordered into __wake_up()'s critical
section, especially in the case where there was nothing to wake
up, but where there were new readers starting concurrently with
cpu_hotplug_done().
> But, Peter, the main question is, why this is better than
> percpu_rw_semaphore performance-wise? (Assuming we add
> task_struct->cpuhp_ref).
>
> If the writer is pending, percpu_down_read() does
>
> down_read(&brw->rw_sem);
> atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr);
> __up_read(&brw->rw_sem);
>
> is it really much worse than wait_event + atomic_dec_and_test?
>
> And! please note that with your implementation the new readers will
> be likely blocked while the writer sleeps in synchronize_sched().
> This doesn't happen with percpu_rw_semaphore.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
