Thread (21 messages) 21 messages, 4 authors, 3d ago

Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] rcu: Enable RCU callbacks to benefit from expedited grace periods

From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-07-10 13:59:02
Also in: lkml, rcu

Le Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 06:23:48AM -0700, Puranjay Mohan a écrit :
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Currently, RCU callbacks only track normal grace-period sequence
numbers.  This means callbacks must wait for normal grace periods to
complete even when expedited grace periods have already elapsed.

Use the full struct rcu_gp_seq (which tracks both the normal and
expedited grace-period sequences) throughout the callback
infrastructure.

rcu_segcblist_advance() now checks both normal and expedited GP
completion via poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(), and becomes
parameterless since it reads the grace-period state internally.
rcu_segcblist_accelerate() stores the full state (both sequences)
instead of just the normal one.  rcu_accelerate_cbs() and
rcu_accelerate_cbs_unlocked() use get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() to
capture both sequences, and the NOCB advance checks use
poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() instead of comparing only the normal
sequence.

srcu_segcblist_advance() becomes a standalone implementation because it
compares SRCU sequences directly and cannot use
poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(), which reads RCU-specific globals.
srcu_segcblist_accelerate() sets the ->exp field to
RCU_GET_STATE_NOT_TRACKED so that poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full()
compares only ->norm and ignores ->exp.

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h |  2 +-
 kernel/rcu/tree.c          |  9 +++------
 kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h     | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
index 4e3dfe42bc097..cf8951d33e767 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
 
+#include "rcu.h"
 #include "rcu_segcblist.h"
 
 /* Initialize simple callback list. */
@@ -494,9 +495,9 @@ static void rcu_segcblist_advance_compact(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int i)
 
 /*
  * Advance the callbacks in the specified rcu_segcblist structure based
- * on the current value passed in for the grace-period counter.
+ * on the current value of the grace-period counter.
  */
-void rcu_segcblist_advance(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, struct rcu_gp_seq *gsp)
+void rcu_segcblist_advance(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp)
 {
 	int i;
 
@@ -509,7 +510,7 @@ void rcu_segcblist_advance(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, struct rcu_gp_seq *gsp)
 	 * are ready to invoke, and put them into the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment.
 	 */
 	for (i = RCU_WAIT_TAIL; i < RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++) {
-		if (ULONG_CMP_LT(gsp->norm, rsclp->gp_seq[i].norm))
+		if (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rsclp->gp_seq[i]))
So after more careful review, the smp_mb() at the end of a successful
poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() is necessary here because the current locking
is not enough to make sure we synchronize against the end of the grace period.

But what about the smp_mb() at the beginning? Paul what is the point of this one
already? It advertizes to pair with the smp_mb() on root cleanup but what
exactly is to be ordered here? Why does gp cleanup need to synchronize with
failing poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() ? The smp_mb() before rcu_seq_snap()
in get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() should already synchronize the accesses
before that call against the beginning of the grace period.

If we keep all these barriers around and both RCU_WAIT_TAIL and RCU_NEXT_READY
need to be advanced, that makes 4 smp_mb() calls.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -637,14 +638,29 @@ void rcu_segcblist_merge(struct rcu_segcblist *dst_rsclp,
 
 void srcu_segcblist_advance(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, unsigned long seq)
 {
-	struct rcu_gp_seq gs = { .norm = seq };
+	int i;
+
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_segcblist_is_enabled(rsclp));
+	if (rcu_segcblist_restempty(rsclp, RCU_DONE_TAIL))
+		return;
+
+	for (i = RCU_WAIT_TAIL; i < RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++) {
+		if (ULONG_CMP_LT(seq, rsclp->gp_seq[i].norm))
+			break;
Why not use the same API here and consolidate the code? ->exp is RCU_GET_STATE_NOT_TRACKED so it's
harmless?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1164,7 +1164,7 @@ static bool rcu_accelerate_cbs(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
 	 * accelerating callback invocation to an earlier grace-period
 	 * number.
 	 */
-	gs.norm = rcu_seq_snap(&rcu_state.gp_seq);
+	get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&gs);
I have similar concerns about the three smp_mb() in
get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(). It could be just two (rcu_seq_snap()
has a barrier that could be just one). Not sure if that matters but,
just wanted to point that.

Thanks.

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help