From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/22] rcu: Move rcu_barrier_cpu_count to rcu_state structure
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:17:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1340378241-6458-7-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1340378241-6458-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
In order to allow each RCU flavor to concurrently execute its rcu_barrier()
function, it is necessary to move the relevant state to the rcu_state
structure. This commit therefore moves the rcu_barrier_cpu_count global
variable to a new ->barrier_cpu_count field in the rcu_state structure.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
---
kernel/rcutree.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
kernel/rcutree.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index cb2d35d..592c43f 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -157,7 +157,6 @@ unsigned long rcutorture_vernum;
/* State information for rcu_barrier() and friends. */
-static atomic_t rcu_barrier_cpu_count;
static DEFINE_MUTEX(rcu_barrier_mutex);
static struct completion rcu_barrier_completion;
@@ -2267,9 +2266,12 @@ static int rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(int cpu)
* RCU callback function for _rcu_barrier(). If we are last, wake
* up the task executing _rcu_barrier().
*/
-static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *notused)
+static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp)
{
- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count))
+ struct rcu_data *rdp = container_of(rhp, struct rcu_data, barrier_head);
+ struct rcu_state *rsp = rdp->rsp;
+
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count))
complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
}
@@ -2281,7 +2283,7 @@ static void rcu_barrier_func(void *type)
struct rcu_state *rsp = type;
struct rcu_data *rdp = __this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
- atomic_inc(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count);
+ atomic_inc(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count);
rsp->call(&rdp->barrier_head, rcu_barrier_callback);
}
@@ -2294,9 +2296,9 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp)
int cpu;
unsigned long flags;
struct rcu_data *rdp;
- struct rcu_head rh;
+ struct rcu_data rd;
- init_rcu_head_on_stack(&rh);
+ init_rcu_head_on_stack(&rd.barrier_head);
/* Take mutex to serialize concurrent rcu_barrier() requests. */
mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
@@ -2321,7 +2323,7 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp)
* us -- but before CPU 1's orphaned callbacks are invoked!!!
*/
init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
- atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 1);
+ atomic_set(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count, 1);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rsp->onofflock, flags);
rsp->rcu_barrier_in_progress = current;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rsp->onofflock, flags);
@@ -2360,15 +2362,16 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp)
rcu_adopt_orphan_cbs(rsp);
rsp->rcu_barrier_in_progress = NULL;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rsp->onofflock, flags);
- atomic_inc(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count);
+ atomic_inc(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count);
smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); /* Ensure atomic_inc() before callback. */
- rsp->call(&rh, rcu_barrier_callback);
+ rd.rsp = rsp;
+ rsp->call(&rd.barrier_head, rcu_barrier_callback);
/*
* Now that we have an rcu_barrier_callback() callback on each
* CPU, and thus each counted, remove the initial count.
*/
- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count))
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count))
complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
/* Wait for all rcu_barrier_callback() callbacks to be invoked. */
@@ -2377,7 +2380,7 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp)
/* Other rcu_barrier() invocations can now safely proceed. */
mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
- destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&rh);
+ destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&rd.barrier_head);
}
/**
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.h b/kernel/rcutree.h
index 1783eae..e7d29b7 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.h
@@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ struct rcu_state {
struct task_struct *rcu_barrier_in_progress;
/* Task doing rcu_barrier(), */
/* or NULL if no barrier. */
+ atomic_t barrier_cpu_count; /* # CPUs waiting on. */
raw_spinlock_t fqslock; /* Only one task forcing */
/* quiescent states. */
unsigned long jiffies_force_qs; /* Time at which to invoke */
--
1.7.8
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-22 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-22 15:16 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/22] v2 Improvements to rcu_barrier() and RT response on big systems Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/22] rcu: Control RCU_FANOUT_LEAF from boot-time parameter Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/22] rcu: Four-level hierarchy is no longer experimental Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/22] rcu: Size rcu_node tree from nr_cpu_ids rather than NR_CPUS Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/22] rcu: Prevent excessive line length in RCU_STATE_INITIALIZER() Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/22] rcu: Place pointer to call_rcu() in rcu_data structure Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/22] rcu: Move _rcu_barrier()'s rcu_head structures to rcu_data structures Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/22] rcu: Move rcu_barrier_completion to rcu_state structure Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/22] rcu: Move rcu_barrier_mutex " Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/22] rcu: Remove needless initialization Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/22] rcu: Increase rcu_barrier() concurrency Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/22] rcu: Add tracing for _rcu_barrier() Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/22] rcu: Add rcu_barrier() statistics to debugfs tracing Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/22] rcu: Remove unneeded __rcu_process_callbacks() argument Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/22] rcu: Introduce for_each_rcu_flavor() and use it Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/22] rcu: Use for_each_rcu_flavor() in TREE_RCU tracing Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/22] rcu: RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK code no longer ever dead Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/22] rcu: Move RCU grace-period initialization into a kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/22] rcu: Allow RCU grace-period initialization to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/22] rcu: Move RCU grace-period cleanup into kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/22] rcu: Allow RCU grace-period cleanup to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-22 15:17 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 22/22] rcu: Prevent offline CPUs from executing RCU core code Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-01 6:19 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/22] rcu: Control RCU_FANOUT_LEAF from boot-time parameter Rusty Russell
2012-07-01 7:17 ` Josh Triplett
2012-07-01 12:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-01 17:45 ` Josh Triplett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1340378241-6458-7-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=paul.mckenney@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sbw@mit.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®