Re: [patch 3/4] stop_machine: implementstop_machine_from_offline_cpu()

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Thu Jun 23 2011 - 05:28:54 EST


Hello, Peter.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:25:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:20 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > +int stop_machine_from_offline_cpu(int (*fn)(void *), void *data,
> > + const struct cpumask *cpus)
> > +{
> > + struct stop_machine_data smdata = { .fn = fn, .data = data,
> > + .active_cpus = cpus };
> > + struct cpu_stop_done done;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* Local CPU must be offline and CPU hotplug in progress. */
> > + BUG_ON(cpu_online(raw_smp_processor_id()));
> > + smdata.num_threads = num_online_cpus() + 1; /* +1 for local */
> > +
> > + /* No proper task established and can't sleep - busy wait for lock. */
> > + while (!mutex_trylock(&stop_cpus_mutex))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > +
> > + /* Schedule work on other CPUs and execute directly for local CPU */
> > + set_state(&smdata, STOPMACHINE_PREPARE);
> > + cpu_stop_init_done(&done, num_online_cpus());
> > + queue_stop_cpus_work(cpu_online_mask, stop_machine_cpu_stop, &smdata,
> > + &done);
> > + ret = stop_machine_cpu_stop(&smdata);
> > +
> > + /* Busy wait for completion. */
> > + while (!completion_done(&done.completion))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&stop_cpus_mutex);
> > + return ret ?: done.ret;
> > +}
>
> Damn thats ugly, I sure hope you're going to make those hardware folks
> pay for this :-)

Oh, I agree it's fugly. It's trying to orchestrate stop_machine from
a CPU which doesn't have proper scheduler/task set up. At least it's
contained in a single relatively short function.

Thanks.

--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/