Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU
From: Oleg Nesterov <hidden>
Date: 2007-09-23 17:34:21
Also in:
lkml
On 09/10, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Work in progress, not for inclusion.
Impressive work! a couple of random newbie's questions...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- linux-2.6.22-b-fixbarriers/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2007-07-19 14:02:36.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.22-c-preemptrcu/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2007-08-22 15:21:06.000000000 -0700 extern void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user);
Also superfluously declared in rcuclassic.h and in rcupreempt.h
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- linux-2.6.22-b-fixbarriers/include/linux/rcupreempt.h 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000000 -0800 +++ linux-2.6.22-c-preemptrcu/include/linux/rcupreempt.h 2007-08-22 15:21:06.000000000 -0700 + +#define __rcu_read_lock_nesting() (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting)
unused?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.22-b-fixbarriers/kernel/rcupreempt.c linux-2.6.22-c-preemptrcu/kernel/rcupreempt.c--- linux-2.6.22-b-fixbarriers/kernel/rcupreempt.c 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000000 -0800 +++ linux-2.6.22-c-preemptrcu/kernel/rcupreempt.c 2007-08-22 15:35:19.000000000 -0700 +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_data); +static struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_ctrlblk = { + .fliplock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, + .completed = 0, +};static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int [2], rcu_flipctr) = { 0, 0 };
Just curious, any reason why rcu_flipctr can't live in rcu_data ? Similarly, rcu_try_flip_state can be a member of rcu_ctrlblk, it is even protected by rcu_ctrlblk.fliplock Isn't DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED better for rcu_flip_flag and rcu_mb_flag?
+void __rcu_read_lock(void)
+{
+ int idx;
+ struct task_struct *me = current;
+ int nesting;
+
+ nesting = ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(me->rcu_read_lock_nesting);
+ if (nesting != 0) {
+
+ /* An earlier rcu_read_lock() covers us, just count it. */
+
+ me->rcu_read_lock_nesting = nesting + 1;
+
+ } else {
+ unsigned long oldirq;
+
+ /*
+ * Disable local interrupts to prevent the grace-period
+ * detection state machine from seeing us half-done.
+ * NMIs can still occur, of course, and might themselves
+ * contain rcu_read_lock().
+ */
+
+ local_irq_save(oldirq);Could you please tell more, why do we need this cli? It can't "protect" rcu_ctrlblk.completed, and the only change which affects the state machine is rcu_flipctr[idx]++, so I can't understand the "half-done" above. (of course, we must disable preemption while changing rcu_flipctr). Hmm... this was already discussed... from another message: > Critical portions of the GP protection happen in the scheduler-clock > interrupt, which is a hardirq. For example, the .completed counter > is always incremented in hardirq context, and we cannot tolerate a > .completed increment in this code. Allowing such an increment would > defeat the counter-acknowledge state in the state machine. Still can't understand, please help! .completed could be incremented by another CPU, why rcu_check_callbacks() running on _this_ CPU is so special?
+ + /* + * Outermost nesting of rcu_read_lock(), so increment + * the current counter for the current CPU. Use volatile + * casts to prevent the compiler from reordering. + */ + + idx = ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(rcu_ctrlblk.completed) & 0x1; + smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* @@@@ might be unneeded */ + ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(__get_cpu_var(rcu_flipctr)[idx])++;
Isn't it "obvious" that this barrier is not needed? rcu_flipctr could be change only by this CPU, regardless of the actual value of idx, we can't read the "wrong" value of rcu_flipctr[idx], no? OTOH, I can't understand how it works. With ot without local_irq_save(), another CPU can do rcu_try_flip_idle() and increment rcu_ctrlblk.completed at any time, we can see the old value... rcu_try_flip_waitzero() can miss us? OK, GP_STAGES > 1, so rcu_try_flip_waitzero() will actually check both 0 and 1 lastidx's before synchronize_rcu() succeeds... I doubt very much my understanding is correct. Apart from this why GP_STAGES > 1 ??? Well, I think this code is just too tricky for me! Will try to read again after sleep ;)
+static int
+rcu_try_flip_idle(void)
+{
+ int cpu;
+
+ RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_try_flip_i1);
+ if (!rcu_pending(smp_processor_id())) {
+ RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_try_flip_ie1);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Do the flip.
+ */
+
+ RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_try_flip_g1);
+ rcu_ctrlblk.completed++; /* stands in for rcu_try_flip_g2 */
+
+ /*
+ * Need a memory barrier so that other CPUs see the new
+ * counter value before they see the subsequent change of all
+ * the rcu_flip_flag instances to rcu_flipped.
+ */Why? Any code sequence which relies on that? For example, rcu_check_callbacks does if (rcu_ctrlblk.completed == rdp->completed) rcu_try_flip(); it is possible that the timer interrupt calls rcu_check_callbacks() exactly because rcu_pending() sees rcu_flipped, but without rmb() in between we can see the old value of rcu_ctrlblk.completed. This is not a problem because rcu_try_flip() needs rcu_ctrlblk.fliplock, so rcu_try_flip() will see the new state != rcu_try_flip_idle_state, but I can't understand any mb() in rcu_try_flip_xxx().
+static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ struct rcu_head *next, *list;
+ struct rcu_data *rdp = RCU_DATA_ME();
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&rdp->lock, flags);
+ list = rdp->donelist;
+ if (list == NULL) {
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rdp->lock, flags);
+ return;
+ }Do we really need this fastpath? It is not needed for the correctness, and this case is very unlikely (in fact I think it is not possible: rcu_check_callbacks() (triggers RCU_SOFTIRQ) is called with irqs disabled).
+void fastcall call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
+ void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
+{
+ unsigned long oldirq;
+ struct rcu_data *rdp;
+
+ head->func = func;
+ head->next = NULL;
+ local_irq_save(oldirq);
+ rdp = RCU_DATA_ME();
+ spin_lock(&rdp->lock);This looks a bit strange. Is this optimization? Why not spin_lock_irqsave(&rdp->lock, flags); rdp = RCU_DATA_ME(); ... ? RCU_DATA_ME() is cheap, but spin_lock() under local_irq_save() spins without preemption. Actually, why do we need rcu_data->lock ? Looks like local_irq_save() should be enough, no? perhaps some -rt reasons ?
+ __rcu_advance_callbacks(rdp);
Any reason this func can't do rcu_check_mb() as well? If this is possible, can't we move the code doing "s/rcu_flipped/rcu_flip_seen/" from __rcu_advance_callbacks() to rcu_check_mb() to unify the "acks" ?
+void __synchronize_sched(void)
+{
+ cpumask_t oldmask;
+ int cpu;
+
+ if (sched_getaffinity(0, &oldmask) < 0)
+ oldmask = cpu_possible_map;
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ sched_setaffinity(0, cpumask_of_cpu(cpu));
+ schedule();This "schedule()" is not needed, any time sched_setaffinity() returns on another CPU we already forced preemption of the previously active task on that CPU.
+ } + sched_setaffinity(0, oldmask); +}
Well, this is not correct... but doesn't matter because of the next patch. But could you explain how it can deadlock (according to the changelog of the next patch) ? Thanks! Oleg.