Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] stop_machine: Remove stop_cpus_lock and lg_double_lock/unlock()
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Mon Nov 23 2015 - 16:54:31 EST
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 07:11:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> stop_two_cpus() and stop_cpus() use stop_cpus_lock to avoid the deadlock,
> we need to ensure that the stopper functions can't be queued "backwards"
> from one another. This doesn't look nice; if we use lglock then we do not
> really need stopper->lock, cpu_stop_queue_work() could use lg_local_lock()
> under local_irq_save().
Yeah, removing stopper->lock would be nice.
> OTOH it would be even better to avoid lglock in stop_machine.c and remove
> lg_double_lock(). This patch adds "bool stop_cpus_in_progress" set/cleared
> by queue_stop_cpus_work(), and changes cpu_stop_queue_two_works() to busy
> wait until it is cleared.
> queue_stop_cpus_work() sets stop_cpus_in_progress = T lockless, but after
> it queues a work on CPU1 it must be visible to stop_two_cpus(CPU1, CPU2)
> which checks it under the same lock. And since stop_two_cpus() holds the
> 2nd lock too, queue_stop_cpus_work() can not clear stop_cpus_in_progress
> if it is also going to queue a work on CPU2, it needs to take that 2nd
> lock to do this.
Isn't this a lot more subtler than the other direction? Unless
there's a clear performance advantage to removing stopper->lock, using
lglock for both stop_two and stop_machine seems like an
easier-to-follow approach to me.
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/