Message-ID: <4B56C047.6070808@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:35:19 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, awalls@radix.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
       cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
       avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, andi@firstfloor.org,
       Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/40] sched: implement __set_cpus_allowed()
References: <1263776272-382-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>	 <1263776272-382-5-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>	 <1263808570.4283.149.camel@laptop>  <4B54445E.302@kernel.org>	 <1263814869.4283.296.camel@laptop>  <4B5505E2.4080203@kernel.org> <1263890222.4283.634.camel@laptop>
In-Reply-To: <1263890222.4283.634.camel@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1922
Lines: 49

Hello,

On 01/19/2010 05:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:07 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> It's also necessary to guarantee forward progress during CPU_DOWN.
>> The problem with kthread_bind() is that it's not synchronized against
>> CPU hotplug operations.  It needs outer synchronization like calling
>> it directly from CPU_DOWN_PREP.  I guess it's doable but I think it
>> would be better to simply share the backend implementation between
>> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() and kthread_bind().
> 
> OK, so you're saying you need to migrate the rescue thread during
> cpu-down. That thread is guaranteed sleeping right,

No, it's not.  It might have been tasked to process works from other
CPUs.

> if it were not it'd not be elegible to run on our dying cpu.  Hence
> kthread_bind() ought to just work, no?

Why wouldn't it be elegible?

Commit e2912009fb7b715728311b0d8fe327a1432b3f79 killed the ability to
bind a kthread to a dead CPU which means that the only differences
between kthread_bind() and set_cpus_allowed_ptr() are...

* Whether to use cpu_online_mask or cpu_active_mask.

* Whether to set or check PF_THREAD_BOUND.

Wouldn't it make more sense to share the backend implementation
between kthread_bind() and set_cpus_allowed_ptr() instead of making
kthread_bind() a special case?  The goals of the two functions are
basically identical.  Why have two separate implementations?
kthread_bind() implementation as it currently stands is pretty fragile
too.  Making kthread_bind() backed by set_cpus_allowed_ptr() will make
it more robust and less error-prone and all that's necessary to
achieve that is modifying sanity checks.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/