On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:55 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 08:01 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> > Hi Srivatsa,
> >
> > Thank you for your reviewing.
> >
> > 2012/07/06 18:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> On 07/06/2012 08:46 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >>> Even if cpu_down() fails, acpi_processor_remove() continues to remove the
> >>> cpu.
> >>
> >> Ouch!
> >>
> >>> But in this case, it should return error number since some process may
> >>> run on
> >>> the cpu. If the cpu has a running process and the cpu is turned the power
> >>> off,
> >>> the system cannot work well.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-06-25
> >>> 04:53:04.000000000 +0900
> >>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-05
> >>> 21:02:58.711285382 +0900
> >>> @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ err_free_pr:
> >>> static int acpi_processor_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type)
> >>> {
> >>> struct acpi_processor *pr = NULL;
> >>> -
> >>> + int ret;
> >>>
> >>> if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
> >>> return -EINVAL;
> >>> @@ -621,8 +621,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_remove(struct
> >>> goto free;
> >>>
> >>> if (type == ACPI_BUS_REMOVAL_EJECT) {
> >>> - if (acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr))
> >>> - return -EINVAL;
> >>> + ret = acpi_processor_handle_eject(pr);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> acpi_processor_power_exit(pr, device);
> >>> @@ -841,12 +842,17 @@ static acpi_status acpi_processor_hotadd
> >>>
> >>> static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >>> {
> >>> - if (cpu_online(pr->id))
> >>> - cpu_down(pr->id);
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
> >>> + ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> + }
> >>>
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking, this is not thorough enough. What prevents someone
> >> from onlining that same cpu again, at this point?
> >> So, IMHO, you need to wrap the contents of this function inside a
> >> get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() block, to prevent anyone else
> >> from messing with CPU hotplug at the same time.
> >
> > If I understand your comment by mistake, please let me know.
> > If the contents is wrapped a inside get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
> > block
> > as below, cpu_down() will stop since cpu_down() calls cpu_hotplug_begin()
> > and
> > cpu_hotplug_begin() waits for cpu_hotplug.refcount to become 0.
> >
>
> You are right. Sorry, I overlooked that.
>
> > + get_online_cpus()
> > + if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
> > + ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + put_online_cpus()
> >
> > I think following patch can prevent it correctly. How about the patch?
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > kernel/cpu.c | 8 +++++---
> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-09
> > 09:59:01.280211202 +0900
> > +++ linux-3.5-rc4/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c 2012-07-09
> > 11:05:34.559859236 +0900
> > @@ -844,14 +844,26 @@ static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(s
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > +retry:
> > if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
> > ret = cpu_down(pr->id);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > + get_online_cpus();
> > + /*
> > + * Someone might online the cpu again at this point. So we check that
> > + * cpu has been onlined or not. If cpu is online, we try to offline
> > + * the cpu again.
> > + */
> > + if (cpu_online(pr->id)) {
>
> How about this:
> if (unlikely(cpu_online(pr->id)) {
> since the probability of this happening is quite small...
>
> > + put_online_cpus();
> > + goto retry;
> > + }
> > arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
> > acpi_unmap_lsapic(pr->id);
> > + put_online_cpus();
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> This retry logic doesn't look elegant, but I don't see any better method :-(
Another possible option is to fail the request instead of retrying it.
It would be quite challenging to allow on-lining and off-lining
operations to run concurrently. In fact, even if we close this window,
there is yet another window right after the new put_online_cpus() call.
This CPU may become online before calling _EJ0 in the case of
hot-remove.
This goes beyond the scope of this patch, but IMHO, we should serialize
in the request level. That is, a new on-lining request should not be
allowed to proceed until the current request is complete. This scheme
only allows a single operation at a time per OS instance, but I do not
think it is a big issue.
Serializing in the request level is also important when supporting
container hot-remove, which can remove multiple children objects under a
parent container object. For instance, a Node hot-remove may also
remove multiple processors underneath of it. This kind of the
operations has to make sure that all children objects are remained
off-line until it ejects the parent object.
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
