From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] rcusync: introduce rcu_sync_struct->exclusive mode
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:41:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131004204159.GT3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131004195623.GA19436@redhat.com>
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:56:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hmm. perhaps you meant that this should be done before rcu_sync_enter()
> increments ->gp_count. Perhaps this can work, but the code will be more
> complex and this way rcu_sync_exit() will always schedule the callback?
Yah, however see below.
> And again, we do want to increment ->gp_count asap to disable this cb
> if it is already pending.
Ah indeed, I forgot about that. We'd have to wait until we'd get
scheduled to increment gp_count again. However I think we can fix this
and the above problem by introduction of rcu_sync_busy() which checks
for eiter gp_count or pending waiters.
But yes, slightly more complex code :/
That would yield something like so I suppose:
void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
{
bool need_wait, need_sync;
spin_lock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
if (rss->exclusive && rss->gp_count) {
__wait_event_locked(rss->gp_wait, rss->gp_count);
rss->gp_count++;
need_wait = need_sync = false;
} else {
need_wait = rss->gp_count++;
need_sync = rss->gp_state == GP_IDLE;
if (need_sync)
rss->gp_state = GP_PENDING;
}
spin_unlock_irq(&rss->lock);
if (need_sync) {
rss->sync();
rss->gp_state = GP_PASSED;
wake_up_all(&rss->gp_wait);
} else if (need_wait) {
wait_event(rss->gp_wait, rss->gp_state == GP_PASSED);
} else {
BUG_ON(rss->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
}
}
static bool rcu_sync_busy(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
{
return rss->gp_count ||
(rss->exclusive && waitqueue_active(&rss->gp_wait));
}
static void rcu_sync_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
{
struct rcu_sync_struct *rss =
container_of(rcu, struct rcu_sync_struct, cb_head);
unsigned long flags;
BUG_ON(rss->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
BUG_ON(rss->cb_state == CB_IDLE);
spin_lock_irqsave(&rss->rss_lock, flags);
if (rcu_sync_busy(rss)) {
/*
* A new rcu_sync_begin() has happened; drop the callback.
*/
rss->cb_state = CB_IDLE;
} else if (rss->cb_state == CB_REPLAY) {
/*
* A new rcu_sync_exit() has happened; requeue the callback
* to catch a later GP.
*/
rss->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
rss->call(&rss->cb_head, rcu_sync_func);
} else {
/*
* We're at least a GP after rcu_sync_exit(); eveybody will now
* have observed the write side critical section. Let 'em rip!.
*/
rss->cb_state = CB_IDLE;
rss->gp_state = GP_IDLE;
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rss->rss_lock, flags);
}
void rcu_sync_exit(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
{
spin_lock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
if (!--rss->gp_count) {
if (!rcu_sync_busy(rss)) {
if (rss->cb_state == CB_IDLE) {
rss->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
rss->call(&rss->cb_head, rcu_sync_func);
} else if (rss->cb_state == CB_PENDING) {
rss->cb_state = CB_REPLAY;
}
} else {
__wake_up_locked(&rss->gp_wait, TASK_NORMAL, 1);
}
}
spin_unlock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-04 20:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-04 18:46 [PATCH 0/5] rcusync: validations + dtor + exclusive Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 18:46 ` [PATCH 1/5] rcusync: introduce struct rcu_sync_ops Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 19:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-10-04 19:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 19:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-10-04 19:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-10-04 19:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-05 17:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-05 17:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-08 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-08 15:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-08 16:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-04 18:46 ` [PATCH 2/5] rcusync: add the CONFIG_PROVE_RCU checks Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 18:46 ` [PATCH 3/5] rcusync: introduce rcu_sync_dtor() Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 18:46 ` [PATCH 4/5] rcusync: introduce rcu_sync_struct->exclusive mode Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 19:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 19:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 20:41 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-10-06 13:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-07 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 18:46 ` [PATCH 5/5] rcusync: make rcu_sync_enter() return "bool" Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 19:32 ` [PATCH 0/5] rcusync: validations + dtor + exclusive Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 21:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-05 17:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20131004204159.GT3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome