tree d903954135e29cd882220180d39cef1df30795b8
parent dfbbe89e197a77f2c8046a51c74e33e35f878080
author Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> 1237542006 +0800
committer Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 1238450977 +0200

rcu: rcu_barrier VS cpu_hotplug: Ensure callbacks in dead cpu are migrated to online cpu

cpu hotplug may happen asynchronously, some rcu callbacks are maybe
still on dead cpu, rcu_barrier() also needs to wait for these rcu
callbacks to complete, so we must ensure callbacks in dead cpu are
migrated to online cpu.

Paul E. McKenney's review:

  Good stuff, Lai!!!  Simpler than any of the approaches that I was
  considering, and, better yet, independent of the underlying RCU
  implementation!!!

  I was initially worried that wake_up() might wake only one of two
  possible wait_event()s, namely rcu_barrier() and the CPU_POST_DEAD code,
  but the fact that wait_event() clears WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE avoids that issue.
  I was also worried about the fact that different RCU implementations have
  different mappings of call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(), and call_rcu_sched(), but
  this is OK as well because we just get an extra (harmless) callback in the
  case that they map together (for example, Classic RCU has call_rcu_sched()
  mapping to call_rcu()).

  Overlap of CPU-hotplug operations is prevented by cpu_add_remove_lock,
  and any stray callbacks that arrive (for example, from irq handlers
  running on the dying CPU) either are ahead of the CPU_DYING callbacks on
  the one hand (and thus accounted for), or happened after the rcu_barrier()
  started on the other (and thus don't need to be accounted for).

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
LKML-Reference: <49C36476.1010400@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>