Re: [PATCH 2/5] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table throughout insertion.
From: Paul E. McKenney <hidden>
Date: 2019-03-11 22:10:09
Also in:
lkml, rcu
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 08:50:05AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 07:44:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:04:48PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:quoted
On Mon, Jul 30 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:45:45AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:quoted
On Fri, Jul 27 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:18:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:04:37AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:quoted
On Wed, Jul 25 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
quoted
Looks good ... except ... naming is hard. is_after_call_rcu_init() asserts where in the lifecycle we are, is_after_call_rcu() tests where in the lifecycle we are. The names are similar but the purpose is quite different. Maybe s/is_after_call_rcu_init/call_rcu_init/ ??How about rcu_head_init() and rcu_head_after_call_rcu()?Very well, I will pull this change in on my next rebase.Like this?Hard to say - unwinding white-space damage in my head is too challenging when newlines have been deleted :-(What??? Don't you like block-structured code? All kidding aside, how about the following more conventionally formatted version?Wow - it's like I just got new glasses! Yes - nice an clear and now flaws to be found. Thanks a lot.Now that flaws are to be found, please feel free to report them. ;-)Hello, Neil, Any plans to use these functions? There are still no upstream uses. On the other hand, if they proved unuseful, I will remove them. If I don't hear otherwise from you, I will pull them in v5.2.Hi Paul, yes, I do still have plans for them. I've got quite a few things I want to add to rhashtables including this, but got stalled late last year and I haven't managed to get back to it. Thanks for your prompting - I'll make an effort to post some patches soon, particularly the one that makes use of this new functionality.
OK, I won't remove it. Not just yet, anyway. ;-) Thanx, Paul
Thanks, NeilBrownquoted
Thanx, Paulquoted
quoted
NeilBrownquoted
Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ commit e3408141ed7d702995b2fdc94703af88aadd226b Author: Paul E. McKenney [off-list ref] Date: Tue Jul 24 15:28:09 2018 -0700 rcu: Provide functions for determining if call_rcu() has been invoked This commit adds rcu_head_init() and rcu_head_after_call_rcu() functions to help RCU users detect when another CPU has passed the specified rcu_head structure and function to call_rcu(). The rcu_head_init() should be invoked before making the structure visible to RCU readers, and then the rcu_head_after_call_rcu() may be invoked from within an RCU read-side critical section on an rcu_head structure that was obtained during a traversal of the data structure in question. The rcu_head_after_call_rcu() function will return true if the rcu_head structure has already been passed (with the specified function) to call_rcu(), otherwise it will return false. If rcu_head_init() has not been invoked on the rcu_head structure or if the rcu_head (AKA callback) has already been invoked, then rcu_head_after_call_rcu() will do WARN_ON_ONCE(). Reported-by: NeilBrown [off-list ref] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney [off-list ref] [ paulmck: Apply neilb naming feedback. ]diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h index e4f821165d0b..4db8bcacc51a 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h@@ -857,6 +857,46 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void) #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE */ +/* Has the specified rcu_head structure been handed to call_rcu()? */ + +/* + * rcu_head_init - Initialize rcu_head for rcu_head_after_call_rcu() + * @rhp: The rcu_head structure to initialize. + * + * If you intend to invoke rcu_head_after_call_rcu() to test whether a + * given rcu_head structure has already been passed to call_rcu(), then + * you must also invoke this rcu_head_init() function on it just after + * allocating that structure. Calls to this function must not race with + * calls to call_rcu(), rcu_head_after_call_rcu(), or callback invocation. + */ +static inline void rcu_head_init(struct rcu_head *rhp) +{ + rhp->func = (rcu_callback_t)~0L; +} + +/* + * rcu_head_after_call_rcu - Has this rcu_head been passed to call_rcu()? + * @rhp: The rcu_head structure to test. + * @func: The function passed to call_rcu() along with @rhp. + * + * Returns @true if the @rhp has been passed to call_rcu() with @func, + * and @false otherwise. Emits a warning in any other case, including + * the case where @rhp has already been invoked after a grace period. + * Calls to this function must not race with callback invocation. One way + * to avoid such races is to enclose the call to rcu_head_after_call_rcu() + * in an RCU read-side critical section that includes a read-side fetch + * of the pointer to the structure containing @rhp. + */ +static inline bool +rcu_head_after_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t f) +{ + if (READ_ONCE(rhp->func) == f) + return true; + WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(rhp->func) != (rcu_callback_t)~0L); + return false; +} + + /* Transitional pre-consolidation compatibility definitions. */ static inline void synchronize_rcu_bh(void)diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h index 5dec94509a7e..4c56c1d98fb3 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h@@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ void kfree(const void *); */ static inline bool __rcu_reclaim(const char *rn, struct rcu_head *head) { + rcu_callback_t f; unsigned long offset = (unsigned long)head->func; rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_callback_map);@@ -234,7 +235,9 @@ static inline bool __rcu_reclaim(const char *rn, struct rcu_head *head) return true; } else { RCU_TRACE(trace_rcu_invoke_callback(rn, head);) - head->func(head); + f = head->func; + WRITE_ONCE(head->func, (rcu_callback_t)0L); + f(head); rcu_lock_release(&rcu_callback_map); return false; }