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

Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] xen/smp: Rewrite on_selected_cpus() to be lockless


  • To: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:11:30 +0200
  • Authentication-results: eu.smtp.expurgate.cloud; dkim=pass header.s=google header.d=suse.com header.i="@suse.com" header.h="Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To:Autocrypt:From:Content-Language:References:Cc:To:Subject:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID"
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:11:42 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 01.04.2026 18:35, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/smp.c
> +++ b/xen/common/smp.c
> @@ -24,13 +24,15 @@
>  /*
>   * Structure and data for smp_call_function()/on_selected_cpus().
>   */
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(call_lock);
> -static struct call_data_struct {
> +struct call_data_struct {
>      void (*func) (void *info);
>      void *info;
>      int wait;
> -    cpumask_t selected;
> -} call_data;
> +    cpumask_t selected __cacheline_aligned;
> +};
> +
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_data_struct, call_data);
> +static cpumask_t tasks;

Only first pass feedback for now (I still need to go over all of this more
thoroughly).

Having cpumask_t variables anywhere (not just on the stack, where they're
particularly problematic) isn't very nice. Can this become cpumask_var_t?
(We really also need to deal with the one in smp_call_function(), for
example.)

> @@ -50,55 +52,84 @@ void on_selected_cpus(
>      void *info,
>      int wait)
>  {
> +    struct call_data_struct *data;
> +    unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
>      ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled());
>      ASSERT(cpumask_subset(selected, &cpu_online_map));
>  
> -    spin_lock(&call_lock);
> +    if ( cpumask_empty(selected) )
> +        return;
> +
> +    data = &this_cpu(call_data);
>  
> -    cpumask_copy(&call_data.selected, selected);
> +    if ( !data->wait )
> +    {
> +        /* Wait for any previous async call to complete */
> +        while ( !cpumask_empty(&data->selected) )
> +            cpu_relax();
> +
> +        cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &tasks);

Since you set this bit again almost immediately, the above can only be to
make sure that ...

> +    }
>  
> -    if ( cpumask_empty(&call_data.selected) )
> -        goto out;
> +    data->func = func;
> +    data->info = info;
> +    data->wait = wait;

... these updates and ...

> -    call_data.func = func;
> -    call_data.info = info;
> -    call_data.wait = wait;
> +    smp_wmb();
>  
> -    smp_send_call_function_mask(&call_data.selected);
> +    cpumask_copy(&data->selected, selected);

... and this copying happen with the bit clear. Don't you need another
barrier then, though (between cpumask_clear_cpu() and the writes)?

Further isn't the barrier you add coming too early? While the bit in
tasks is clear, nobody's going to look at ->selected. Doesn't the
barrier need to live here, to isolate from ...

> -    while ( !cpumask_empty(&call_data.selected) )
> -        cpu_relax();
> +    cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &tasks);

... this?

> -out:
> -    spin_unlock(&call_lock);
> +    smp_send_call_function_mask(&data->selected);
> +
> +    if ( wait )
> +    {
> +        while ( !cpumask_empty(&data->selected) )
> +            cpu_relax();
> +
> +        cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &tasks);
> +    }
>  }
>  
>  void smp_call_function_interrupt(void)
>  {
> -    void (*func)(void *info) = call_data.func;
> -    void *info = call_data.info;
>      unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -
> -    if ( !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &call_data.selected) )
> -        return;
> +    unsigned int i;
> +    struct call_data_struct *data;
> +    void (*func)(void *info);
> +    void *info;

Please move into the loop's scope whatever can be moved there.

>      irq_enter();
>  
> -    if ( unlikely(!func) )
> -    {
> -        cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &call_data.selected);
> -    }
> -    else if ( call_data.wait )
> -    {
> -        (*func)(info);
> -        smp_mb();
> -        cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &call_data.selected);
> -    }
> -    else
> +    for_each_cpu ( i, &tasks )
>      {
> -        smp_mb();
> -        cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &call_data.selected);
> -        (*func)(info);
> +        data = &per_cpu(call_data, i);
> +
> +        if ( !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &data->selected) )
> +            continue;
> +
> +        smp_rmb();

This barrier looks as if it also needs to move (up).

Jan

> +        func = data->func;
> +        info = data->info;
> +
> +        if ( unlikely(!func) )
> +        {
> +            cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &data->selected);
> +        }
> +        else if ( data->wait )
> +        {
> +            (*func)(info);
> +            smp_mb();
> +            cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &data->selected);
> +        }
> +        else
> +        {
> +            smp_mb();
> +            cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &data->selected);
> +            (*func)(info);
> +        }
>      }
>  
>      irq_exit();




 


Rackspace

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