Srivatsa S. Bhat (srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On 06/23/2012 03:36 AM, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> > A cpu in the mm_cpumask could go offline before we send the invalidate
> > IPI causing us to wait forever. Avoid this by only waiting for online
> > cpus.
> >
> > We are seeing a softlockup reporting during shutdown. The stack
> > trace shows us that we are inside default_send_IPI_mask_logical:
> >
> [...]
> > Changes in V2:
> > * bitmap_and is not atomic so use a temporary bitmask
> >
>
> Looks like I posted my reply to v1. So I'll repeat the same suggestions in
> this thread as well.
>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > index d6c0418..231a0b9 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ static void flush_tlb_others_ipi(const struct cpumask
> > *cpumask,
> > f->flush_mm = mm;
> > f->flush_va = va;
> > if (cpumask_andnot(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask), cpumask,
> > cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()))) {
> > + DECLARE_BITMAP(tmp_cpumask, NR_CPUS);
> > +
> > /*
> > * We have to send the IPI only to
> > * CPUs affected.
> > @@ -192,8 +194,13 @@ static void flush_tlb_others_ipi(const struct cpumask
> > *cpumask,
> > apic->send_IPI_mask(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask),
> > INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_START + sender);
> >
>
> This function is always called with preempt_disabled() right?
> In that case, _while_ this function is running, a CPU cannot go offline
> because of stop_machine(). (I understand that it might go offline in between
> calculating that cpumask and calling preempt_disable() - which is the race
> you are trying to handle).
>
Ah. Good point. A cpu cannot be remove from the cpu_online_mask while
preemption is disabled because stop_machine() can't run until
preemption is enabled.
./kernel/cpu.c: err = __stop_machine(take_cpu_down, &tcd_param,
cpumask_of(cpu));
> So, why not take the offline cpus out of the way even before sending that IPI?
> That way, we need not modify the while loop below.
>
Acked-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <m...@chromium.org>
Do you mind re-sending you're patch with a proper sign-off.
Thanks and regards,
Mandeep
> > - while (!cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask)))
> > + /* Only wait for online cpus */
> > + do {
> > + cpumask_and(to_cpumask(tmp_cpumask),
> > + to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask),
> > + cpu_online_mask);
> > cpu_relax();
> > + } while (!cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(tmp_cpumask)));
> > }
> >
> > f->flush_mm = NULL;
> >
>
> That is, how about something like this:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> index 5e57e11..9d387a9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -186,7 +186,11 @@ static void flush_tlb_others_ipi(const struct cpumask
> *cpumask,
>
> f->flush_mm = mm;
> f->flush_va = va;
> - if (cpumask_andnot(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask), cpumask,
> cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()))) {
> +
> + cpumask_and(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask), cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask));
> +
> + if (!cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask))) {
> /*
> * We have to send the IPI only to
> * CPUs affected.
>
>
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
> IBM Linux Technology Center
>
--
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/
