If an interrupt arrives between llist_add and
send_call_function_single_ipi in the following code snippet, then the
remote CPU will not receive the IPI in a timely manner and subsequent
SMP calls even from other CPUs for other functions will be delayed:
if (llist_add(node, &per_cpu(call_single_queue, cpu)))
send_call_function_single_ipi(cpu);
Note: llist_add returns 1 if it was empty before the operation.
CPU 0 | CPU 1 | CPU 2
__smp_call_single_q(2,f1) | __smp_call_single_q(2,f2) |
llist_add returns 1 | |
interrupted | llist_add returns 0 |
... | branch not taken |
... | |
resumed | |
send_call_function_single_ipi | |
| | f1
| | f2
The call from CPU 1 for function f2 will be delayed because CPU 0 was
interrupted.
Signed-off-by: George Prekas <[email protected]>
---
kernel/smp.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index aa17eedff5be..9dc679466cf0 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -135,6 +135,8 @@ static
DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(call_single_data_t, csd_data);
void __smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct llist_node *node)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
/*
* The list addition should be visible before sending the IPI
* handler locks the list to pull the entry off it because of
@@ -146,8 +148,10 @@ void __smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct
llist_node *node)
* locking and barrier primitives. Generic code isn't really
* equipped to do the right thing...
*/
+ local_irq_save(flags);
if (llist_add(node, &per_cpu(call_single_queue, cpu)))
send_call_function_single_ipi(cpu);
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
}
/*
--
2.16.6
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:00:41AM -0500, George Prekas wrote:
> If an interrupt arrives between llist_add and
> send_call_function_single_ipi in the following code snippet, then the
> remote CPU will not receive the IPI in a timely manner and subsequent
> SMP calls even from other CPUs for other functions will be delayed:
>
> ??? if (llist_add(node, &per_cpu(call_single_queue, cpu)))
> ??????? send_call_function_single_ipi(cpu);
>
> Note: llist_add returns 1 if it was empty before the operation.
>
> CPU 0?????????????????????????? | CPU 1???????????????????? | CPU 2
> __smp_call_single_q(2,f1)?????? | __smp_call_single_q(2,f2) |
> ? llist_add returns 1?????????? |?????????????????????????? |
> ? interrupted?????????????????? |?? llist_add returns 0???? |
> ????? ...?????????????????????? |?? branch not taken??????? |
> ????? ...?????????????????????? |?????????????????????????? |
> ? resumed?????????????????????? |?????????????????????????? |
> ? send_call_function_single_ipi |?????????????????????????? |
> ??????????????????????????????? |?????????????????????????? | f1
> ??????????????????????????????? |?????????????????????????? | f2
>
> The call from CPU 1 for function f2 will be delayed because CPU 0 was
> interrupted.
Do you happen to have any actual numbers and a use-case where this was
relevant?
On 9/24/2020 3:42 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:00:41AM -0500, George Prekas wrote:
>> If an interrupt arrives between llist_add and
>> send_call_function_single_ipi in the following code snippet, then the
>> remote CPU will not receive the IPI in a timely manner and subsequent
>> SMP calls even from other CPUs for other functions will be delayed:
>>
>> if (llist_add(node, &per_cpu(call_single_queue, cpu)))
>> send_call_function_single_ipi(cpu);
>>
>> Note: llist_add returns 1 if it was empty before the operation.
>>
>> CPU 0 | CPU 1 | CPU 2
>> __smp_call_single_q(2,f1) | __smp_call_single_q(2,f2) |
>> llist_add returns 1 | |
>> interrupted | llist_add returns 0 |
>> ... | branch not taken |
>> ... | |
>> resumed | |
>> send_call_function_single_ipi | |
>> | | f1
>> | | f2
>>
>> The call from CPU 1 for function f2 will be delayed because CPU 0 was
>> interrupted.
>
> Do you happen to have any actual numbers and a use-case where this was
> relevant?
Hi Peter,
I encountered this problem while developing a device driver that used
smp_call_function_single to communicate with other cores. I observed
latency spikes and after investigation I figured out the problem
described above.
I have written a simple device driver to validate the above fix. It does
smp_call_function_single and measures the latency. I can post it here if
it is appropriate. The latency impact is equal to the duration of the
CPU 0's interruption.
--
George