LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heiko Carstens <>
To: Satyam Sharma <>
Cc: Jan Glauber <>,
	David Miller <>,,,,,, Alan Cox <>
Subject: Re: [patch] i386/x86_64: smp_call_function locking inconsistency
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:27:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

> >So either all spin_lock_bh's should be converted to spin_lock,
> >which would limit smp_call_function()/smp_call_function_single()
> >to process context & irqs enabled.
> >Or the spin_lock's could be converted to spin_lock_bh which would
> >make it possible to call these two functions even if in softirq
> >context. AFAICS this should be safe.
> Actually, I agree with David and Andi here:
> On 2/9/07, David Miller <> wrote:
> >I think it's logically simpler if we disallow smp_call_function*()
> >from any kind of asynchronous context.  But I'm sure your driver
> >has a true need for this for some reason.
> and
> On 2/9/07, Andi Kleen <> wrote:
> >I'm not so sure. Perhaps drop _bh in both and stick a WARN_ON_ONCE in
> >to catch the cases?
> Replacing the _bh variants and making smp_call_function{_single}
> illegal from all contexts but process is fine for x86_64, as we
> don't really have any driver that needs to use this from softirq
> context in the x86_64 tree. This means it becomes dissimilar to
> s390, but similar to powerpc, mips, alpha, sparc64 semantics.
> I'll prepare and submit a patch for the same, shortly.

Calling an smp_call_* function from any context but process context is
a bug. We didn't notice this initially when we used smp_call_function
from softirq context... until we deadlocked ;)
So s390 is the same as any other architecture wrt this.

> On 2/9/07, Heiko Carstens <> wrote:
> >Another thing that comes into my mind is smp_call_function together
> >with cpu hotplug. Who is responsible that preemption and with that
> >cpu hotplug is disabled?
> >Is it the caller or smp_call_function itself?
> >If it's smp_call_function then s390 would be broken, since
> >then we would have
> >int cpus = num_online_cpus()-1;
> >in preemptible context... I agree: what a mess :)
> and
> On 2/9/07, Jan Glauber <> wrote:
> >If preemption must be disabled before smp_call_function() we should have
> >the same semantics for all smp_call_function_* variants.
> I don't see any CPU hotplug / preemption disabling issues here.
> Note that both smp_call_function() and smp_call_function_single()
> on x86_64 acquire the call_lock spinlock before using cpu_online_map
> via num_online_cpus(). And spin_lock() does preempt_disable() on both
> SMP and !SMP, so we're safe. [ But we're not explicitly disabling
> preemption and depending on spin_lock() instead, so a comment would
> be in order? ]

Calling smp_call_function_single() with preemption enabled is pointless.
You might be scheduled on the cpu you want to send an IPI to and get
-EBUSY as return... If cpu hotplug is enabled the target cpu might even
be gone when smp_call_function_single() gets executed.

Avi Kivity has already a patch which introduces an on_cpu() function which
looks quite like on_each_cpu(). That way you don't have to open code this
stuff over and over again:

if (cpu == smp_processor_id())

There are already quite a few of these around.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-06-07 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-08 20:32 Heiko Carstens
2007-02-08 20:43 ` David Miller
2007-02-09  8:42   ` Heiko Carstens
2007-02-09 12:57     ` Jan Glauber
2007-06-07 14:07       ` Satyam Sharma
2007-06-07 16:27         ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2007-06-07 16:54           ` Satyam Sharma
2007-06-07 17:18             ` Satyam Sharma
2007-06-07 17:22               ` Avi Kivity
2007-06-07 17:33                 ` Satyam Sharma
2007-06-10  7:38                   ` Avi Kivity
2007-06-08 19:43             ` Andi Kleen
2007-06-08 19:42         ` Andi Kleen
2007-02-09  7:40 ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [patch] i386/x86_64: smp_call_function locking inconsistency' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).