On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 06:44:47PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:38:20AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:43:32PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > + for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu(rnp, cpu) {
> > > + if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) /* Preemption disabled. */
> > > + continue;
> >
> > Create for_each_node_online_cpu() instead? Seems a bit pointless to
> > iterate possible mask only to then check it against the online mask.
> > Just iterate the online mask directly.
> >
> > Or better yet, write this as:
> >
> > preempt_disable();
> > cpu = cpumask_next(rnp->grplo - 1, cpu_online_mask);
> > if (cpu > rnp->grphi)
> > cpu = WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
> > queue_work_on(cpu, rcu_par_gp_wq, &rnp->rew.rew_work);
> > preempt_enable();
> >
> > Which is what it appears to be doing.
> >
>
> Make sense! Thanks ;-)
>
> Applied this and running a TREE03 rcutorture. If all go well, I will
> send the updated patch.
>
So the patch has passed one 30 min run for TREE03 rcutorture. Paul,
if it looks good, could you take it for your next spin or pull request
in the future? Thanks.
Regards,
Boqun
-------------->8
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu v2] rcu: exp: Make expedited GPs handle CPU 0
being offline
Currently, the parallelized initialization of expedited grace periods
uses the workqueue associated with each rcu_node structure's ->grplo
field. This works fine unless that CPU is offline. This commit
therefore uses the CPU corresponding to the lowest-numbered online CPU,
or fallback to queue the work on WORK_CPU_UNBOUND if there are no online
CPUs on this rcu_node structure.
Note that this patch uses cpu_online_mask instead of the usual approach
of checking bits in the rcu_node structure's ->qsmaskinitnext field.
This is safe because preemption is disabled across both the
cpu_online_mask check and the call to queue_work_on().
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com>
[ paulmck: Disable preemption to close offline race window. ]
Not-Yet-Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
v1 --> v2:
* Replace the for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu() + cpu_is_offline()
check loop with a single cpumask_next() as suggested by Peter
Zijlstra
kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index d40708e8c5d6..3bf87fd4bd91 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ static void sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(struct rcu_state *rsp,
smp_call_func_t func)
{
struct rcu_node *rnp;
+ int cpu;
trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, rcu_exp_gp_seq_endval(rsp),
TPS("reset"));
sync_exp_reset_tree(rsp);
@@ -492,7 +493,13 @@ static void sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(struct rcu_state *rsp,
continue;
}
INIT_WORK(&rnp->rew.rew_work, sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus);
- queue_work_on(rnp->grplo, rcu_par_gp_wq, &rnp->rew.rew_work);
+ preempt_disable();
+ cpu = cpumask_next(rnp->grplo - 1, cpu_online_mask);
+ /* All offlines, queue the work on an unbound CPU */
+ if (unlikely(cpu > rnp->grphi))
+ cpu = WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
+ queue_work_on(cpu, rcu_par_gp_wq, &rnp->rew.rew_work);
+ preempt_enable();
rnp->exp_need_flush = true;
}
--
2.17.1
