diff options
author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2016-03-15 20:50:29 (GMT) |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2016-03-15 20:50:29 (GMT) |
commit | 710d60cbf1b312a8075a2158cbfbbd9c66132dcc (patch) | |
tree | d46a9f1a14165807701f1868398a6dc76af85968 /drivers | |
parent | df2e37c814d51692803245fcbecca360d4882e96 (diff) | |
parent | d10ef6f9380b8853c4b48eb104268fccfdc0b0c5 (diff) | |
download | linux-710d60cbf1b312a8075a2158cbfbbd9c66132dcc.tar.xz |
Merge branch 'smp-hotplug-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull cpu hotplug updates from Thomas Gleixner:
"This is the first part of the ongoing cpu hotplug rework:
- Initial implementation of the state machine
- Runs all online and prepare down callbacks on the plugged cpu and
not on some random processor
- Replaces busy loop waiting with completions
- Adds tracepoints so the states can be followed"
More detailed commentary on this work from an earlier email:
"What's wrong with the current cpu hotplug infrastructure?
- Asymmetry
The hotplug notifier mechanism is asymmetric versus the bringup and
teardown. This is mostly caused by the notifier mechanism.
- Largely undocumented dependencies
While some notifiers use explicitely defined notifier priorities,
we have quite some notifiers which use numerical priorities to
express dependencies without any documentation why.
- Control processor driven
Most of the bringup/teardown of a cpu is driven by a control
processor. While it is understandable, that preperatory steps,
like idle thread creation, memory allocation for and initialization
of essential facilities needs to be done before a cpu can boot,
there is no reason why everything else must run on a control
processor. Before this patch series, bringup looks like this:
Control CPU Booting CPU
do preparatory steps
kick cpu into life
do low level init
sync with booting cpu sync with control cpu
bring the rest up
- All or nothing approach
There is no way to do partial bringups. That's something which is
really desired because we waste e.g. at boot substantial amount of
time just busy waiting that the cpu comes to life. That's stupid
as we could very well do preparatory steps and the initial IPI for
other cpus and then go back and do the necessary low level
synchronization with the freshly booted cpu.
- Minimal debuggability
Due to the notifier based design, it's impossible to switch between
two stages of the bringup/teardown back and forth in order to test
the correctness. So in many hotplug notifiers the cancel
mechanisms are either not existant or completely untested.
- Notifier [un]registering is tedious
To [un]register notifiers we need to protect against hotplug at
every callsite. There is no mechanism that bringup/teardown
callbacks are issued on the online cpus, so every caller needs to
do it itself. That also includes error rollback.
What's the new design?
The base of the new design is a symmetric state machine, where both
the control processor and the booting/dying cpu execute a well
defined set of states. Each state is symmetric in the end, except
for some well defined exceptions, and the bringup/teardown can be
stopped and reversed at almost all states.
So the bringup of a cpu will look like this in the future:
Control CPU Booting CPU
do preparatory steps
kick cpu into life
do low level init
sync with booting cpu sync with control cpu
bring itself up
The synchronization step does not require the control cpu to wait.
That mechanism can be done asynchronously via a worker or some
other mechanism.
The teardown can be made very similar, so that the dying cpu cleans
up and brings itself down. Cleanups which need to be done after
the cpu is gone, can be scheduled asynchronously as well.
There is a long way to this, as we need to refactor the notion when a
cpu is available. Today we set the cpu online right after it comes
out of the low level bringup, which is not really correct.
The proper mechanism is to set it to available, i.e. cpu local
threads, like softirqd, hotplug thread etc. can be scheduled on that
cpu, and once it finished all booting steps, it's set to online, so
general workloads can be scheduled on it. The reverse happens on
teardown. First thing to do is to forbid scheduling of general
workloads, then teardown all the per cpu resources and finally shut it
off completely.
This patch series implements the basic infrastructure for this at the
core level. This includes the following:
- Basic state machine implementation with well defined states, so
ordering and prioritization can be expressed.
- Interfaces to [un]register state callbacks
This invokes the bringup/teardown callback on all online cpus with
the proper protection in place and [un]installs the callbacks in
the state machine array.
For callbacks which have no particular ordering requirement we have
a dynamic state space, so that drivers don't have to register an
explicit hotplug state.
If a callback fails, the code automatically does a rollback to the
previous state.
- Sysfs interface to drive the state machine to a particular step.
This is only partially functional today. Full functionality and
therefor testability will be achieved once we converted all
existing hotplug notifiers over to the new scheme.
- Run all CPU_ONLINE/DOWN_PREPARE notifiers on the booting/dying
processor:
Control CPU Booting CPU
do preparatory steps
kick cpu into life
do low level init
sync with booting cpu sync with control cpu
wait for boot
bring itself up
Signal completion to control cpu
In a previous step of this work we've done a full tree mechanical
conversion of all hotplug notifiers to the new scheme. The balance
is a net removal of about 4000 lines of code.
This is not included in this series, as we decided to take a
different approach. Instead of mechanically converting everything
over, we will do a proper overhaul of the usage sites one by one so
they nicely fit into the symmetric callback scheme.
I decided to do that after I looked at the ugliness of some of the
converted sites and figured out that their hotplug mechanism is
completely buggered anyway. So there is no point to do a
mechanical conversion first as we need to go through the usage
sites one by one again in order to achieve a full symmetric and
testable behaviour"
* 'smp-hotplug-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: (23 commits)
cpu/hotplug: Document states better
cpu/hotplug: Fix smpboot thread ordering
cpu/hotplug: Remove redundant state check
cpu/hotplug: Plug death reporting race
rcu: Make CPU_DYING_IDLE an explicit call
cpu/hotplug: Make wait for dead cpu completion based
cpu/hotplug: Let upcoming cpu bring itself fully up
arch/hotplug: Call into idle with a proper state
cpu/hotplug: Move online calls to hotplugged cpu
cpu/hotplug: Create hotplug threads
cpu/hotplug: Split out the state walk into functions
cpu/hotplug: Unpark smpboot threads from the state machine
cpu/hotplug: Move scheduler cpu_online notifier to hotplug core
cpu/hotplug: Implement setup/removal interface
cpu/hotplug: Make target state writeable
cpu/hotplug: Add sysfs state interface
cpu/hotplug: Hand in target state to _cpu_up/down
cpu/hotplug: Convert the hotplugged cpu work to a state machine
cpu/hotplug: Convert to a state machine for the control processor
cpu/hotplug: Add tracepoints
...
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions