[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/7] xen/arm: When CPU dies, free percpu area immediatelly

On 17/04/18 11:52, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Julien,

Hi Mirela,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On 16/04/18 14:41, Mirela Simonovic wrote:

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>

On 12/04/18 22:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote:

On 12/04/18 00:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote:

On 11/04/18 14:19, Mirela Simonovic wrote:

I guess the rcu_barrier() in the function handling suspend/resume works.
that doesn't cover the hotplug case. Looking at x86, suspend/resume case.
For the hotplug case, there are an rcu_barrier in cpu_{up,down}_helper
they are only present in the case of cpu_{up,down} failed. I am not
sure how this is handled in x86

Andrew, Jan, do you know when the percpu will be free on hotplug? It is
to call_rcu(...) but I am not sure when this is going to be executed.

AFAIK disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() is the only way to do the hotplug
and rcu_barrier() is not included in the flow.

That's not the only way. I clearly specified one in my previous answer (see
cpu_{up,down}_helper) and there are other place (look for cpu_up).

I've looked at cpu_{up,down}_helper and cpu_up and I'm convinced now
that adding rcu_barrier() prior to calling enable_nonboot_cpus() is
the right approch.

cpu_{up,down}_helper functions exist only for x86.

They have nothing very x86 specific AFAICT so they could potentially be used for Arm when XEN_SYSCTL_hotplug will be implemented.

does call rcu_barrier() prior to calling cpu_up().

That's not true. Below the code for cpu_up_helper():

    int ret = cpu_up(cpu); <- First call
    if ( ret == -EBUSY )
        rcu_barrier();     <- RCU barrier
        ret = cpu_up(cpu); <- Second call
    return ret;

So the rcu_barrier is called after cpu_up() in case it returns -EBUSY.

So calling rcu_barrier() is expected to be done prior to calling
cpu_up() (or enable_nonboot_cpus(), which is just a wrapper for

I believe this is right way to do because cpu_up() is used for
enabling non-boot CPUs in both boot and suspend/hotplug scenarios,
while rcu_barrier() is not required in boot scenario.
Therefore, I'll add rcu_barrier() prior to calling
enable_nonboot_cpus(). If I missed something please let me know.

See above, this is exactly why I asked Andrew & Jan input on how rcu work is flushed when using cpu_up_helper/cpu_down_helper. Because I don't understand if it is meant to work.

So I would like to see whether it would make sense to put the rcu_barrier() somewhere else to cover every call of cpu_up().


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.