Re: [PATCH 1/10] make stop_machine_run accept cpumask

[Nathan Lynch]

Shaohua Li wrote:
> 
> Make __stop_machine_run accepts 'cpumask_t' parameter and 
> multiple cpus be able to run specified task.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> 
> ---
> 
>  linux-2.6.17-rc3-root/include/linux/stop_machine.h |    4 -
>  linux-2.6.17-rc3-root/kernel/cpu.c                 |    2 
>  linux-2.6.17-rc3-root/kernel/stop_machine.c        |   68 ++++++++++++++-------
>  3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -puN include/linux/stop_machine.h~stopmachine-run-accept-cpumask include/linux/stop_machine.h
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc3/include/linux/stop_machine.h~stopmachine-run-accept-cpumask	2006-05-07 07:44:34.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc3-root/include/linux/stop_machine.h	2006-05-07 07:44:34.000000000 +0800
> @@ -28,14 +28,14 @@ int stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *), 
>   * __stop_machine_run: freeze the machine on all CPUs and run this function
>   * @fn: the function to run
>   * @data: the data ptr for the @fn
> - * @cpu: the cpu to run @fn on (or any, if @cpu == NR_CPUS.
> + * @cpus: the cpus to run @fn on.
>   *
>   * Description: This is a special version of the above, which returns the
>   * thread which has run @fn(): kthread_stop will return the return value
>   * of @fn().  Used by hotplug cpu.
>   */
>  struct task_struct *__stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *), void *data,
> -				       unsigned int cpu);
> +				       cpumask_t cpus);
>  
>  #else
>  
> diff -puN kernel/cpu.c~stopmachine-run-accept-cpumask kernel/cpu.c
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc3/kernel/cpu.c~stopmachine-run-accept-cpumask	2006-05-07 07:44:34.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc3-root/kernel/cpu.c	2006-05-07 07:44:34.000000000 +0800
> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
>  	cpu_clear(cpu, tmp);
>  	set_cpus_allowed(current, tmp);
>  
> -	p = __stop_machine_run(take_cpu_down, NULL, cpu);
> +	p = __stop_machine_run(take_cpu_down, NULL, cpumask_of_cpu(cpu));
>  	if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>  		/* CPU didn't die: tell everyone.  Can't complain. */
>  		if (blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DOWN_FAILED,
> diff -puN kernel/stop_machine.c~stopmachine-run-accept-cpumask kernel/stop_machine.c
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc3/kernel/stop_machine.c~stopmachine-run-accept-cpumask	2006-05-07 07:44:34.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc3-root/kernel/stop_machine.c	2006-05-07 07:44:34.000000000 +0800
> @@ -17,18 +17,31 @@ enum stopmachine_state {
>  	STOPMACHINE_WAIT,
>  	STOPMACHINE_PREPARE,
>  	STOPMACHINE_DISABLE_IRQ,
> +	STOPMACHINE_PREPARE_TASK,
> +	STOPMACHINE_FINISH_TASK,
>  	STOPMACHINE_EXIT,
>  };
>  
> +struct stop_machine_data
> +{
> +	cpumask_t task_cpus;
> +	int (*fn)(void *);
> +	void *data;
> +	struct completion done;
> +};
> +
>  static enum stopmachine_state stopmachine_state;
>  static unsigned int stopmachine_num_threads;
>  static atomic_t stopmachine_thread_ack;
>  static DECLARE_MUTEX(stopmachine_mutex);
> +static struct stop_machine_data *smdata;
>  
>  static int stopmachine(void *cpu)
>  {
>  	int irqs_disabled = 0;
>  	int prepared = 0;
> +	int task_prepared = 0;
> +	int task_finished = 0;
>  
>  	set_cpus_allowed(current, cpumask_of_cpu((int)(long)cpu));
>  
> @@ -52,7 +65,22 @@ static int stopmachine(void *cpu)
>  			prepared = 1;
>  			smp_mb(); /* Must read state first. */
>  			atomic_inc(&stopmachine_thread_ack);
> +		} else if (stopmachine_state == STOPMACHINE_PREPARE_TASK
> +			   && !task_prepared) {
> +			task_prepared = 1;
> +			smp_mb(); /* Must read state first. */
> +			atomic_inc(&stopmachine_thread_ack);
> +			/* do the task */
> +			if (cpu_isset((int)(long)cpu, smdata->task_cpus))
> +				smdata->fn(smdata->data);

Bug?  smdata->fn() should be called first, and only then should
stopmachine_thread_ack be incremented, no?


> +		} else if (stopmachine_state == STOPMACHINE_FINISH_TASK
> +			   && !task_finished) {
> +			task_finished = 1;
> +			smp_mb(); /* Must read state first. */
> +			atomic_inc(&stopmachine_thread_ack);
>  		}
> +
> +
>  		/* Yield in first stage: migration threads need to
>  		 * help our sisters onto their CPUs. */
>  		if (!prepared && !irqs_disabled)
> @@ -133,21 +161,18 @@ static void restart_machine(void)
>  	preempt_enable_no_resched();
>  }
>  
> -struct stop_machine_data
> -{
> -	int (*fn)(void *);
> -	void *data;
> -	struct completion done;
> -};
>  
>  static int do_stop(void *_smdata)
>  {
> -	struct stop_machine_data *smdata = _smdata;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	ret = stop_machine();
>  	if (ret == 0) {
> +		stopmachine_set_state(STOPMACHINE_PREPARE_TASK);
> +		/* only record first cpu's return value */
>  		ret = smdata->fn(smdata->data);
> +		/* wait peers finish task */
> +		stopmachine_set_state(STOPMACHINE_FINISH_TASK);

It seems rather arbitrary to record the return value of smdata->fn
from only one of the cpus.  I'm really not keen to have this kind of
situation where the function can partially fail and there's no sane
way to report this back to the caller, nor is there any way to roll
back to the state beforehand.

-
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/