From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 10/12] rcu: Detect expedited grace period completion in rcu_pending()
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 17:57:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260731005732.3530999-10-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58bcd561-0520-43ff-95b0-1ed10e1e3bff@paulmck-laptop>
From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
rcu_pending() decides whether rcu_core() should run on the current CPU's
timer tick. It does not account for expedited grace periods: after an
expedited GP completes, a non-offloaded CPU's callbacks remain in
RCU_WAIT_TAIL (not yet advanced to RCU_DONE_TAIL) and rcu_core() is
never invoked to advance them.
Detect that case via rcu_segcblist_nextgp() combined with a new
memory-ordering-free poll variant,
poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full_unordered(). This keeps rcu_pending()
cheap: it runs on every tick that has pending callbacks, so it must
not pay for the two memory barriers in
poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(). The check is only a hint to run
rcu_core(); the ordered re-check and the actual callback advancement
happen there.
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 251114eb974bca..3541feed95573c 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -3592,6 +3592,24 @@ bool poll_state_synchronize_rcu(unsigned long oldstate)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(poll_state_synchronize_rcu);
+/*
+ * Racy, memory-ordering-free test of whether the normal or expedited grace
+ * period recorded in *gsp has completed. Callers that need the full
+ * memory-ordering guarantees must use poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full();
+ * this variant is only a hint (e.g. for rcu_pending()) and leaves any
+ * required ordering to a subsequent ordered check.
+ */
+static bool poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full_unordered(struct rcu_gp_seq *gsp)
+{
+ struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root();
+
+ return gsp->norm == RCU_GET_STATE_COMPLETED ||
+ rcu_seq_done_exact(&rnp->gp_seq, gsp->norm) ||
+ gsp->exp == RCU_GET_STATE_COMPLETED ||
+ (gsp->exp != RCU_GET_STATE_NOT_TRACKED &&
+ rcu_seq_done_exact(&rcu_state.expedited_sequence, gsp->exp));
+}
+
/**
* poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full - Has the specified RCU grace period completed?
* @gsp: value from get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() or start_poll_synchronize_rcu_full()
@@ -3627,14 +3645,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(poll_state_synchronize_rcu);
*/
bool poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(struct rcu_gp_seq *gsp)
{
- struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root();
-
smp_mb(); // Order against root rcu_node structure grace-period cleanup.
- if (gsp->norm == RCU_GET_STATE_COMPLETED ||
- rcu_seq_done_exact(&rnp->gp_seq, gsp->norm) ||
- gsp->exp == RCU_GET_STATE_COMPLETED ||
- (gsp->exp != RCU_GET_STATE_NOT_TRACKED &&
- rcu_seq_done_exact(&rcu_state.expedited_sequence, gsp->exp))) {
+ if (poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full_unordered(gsp)) {
smp_mb(); /* Ensure GP ends before subsequent accesses. */
return true;
}
@@ -3704,6 +3716,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cond_synchronize_rcu_full);
static int rcu_pending(int user)
{
bool gp_in_progress;
+ struct rcu_gp_seq gp_state;
struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
@@ -3734,6 +3747,17 @@ static int rcu_pending(int user)
rcu_segcblist_ready_cbs(&rdp->cblist))
return 1;
+ /*
+ * Has a GP (normal or expedited) completed for pending callbacks?
+ * This is only a racy hint to decide whether to run rcu_core(); the
+ * ordered re-check and callback advancement happen there, so the
+ * unordered test avoids paying for memory barriers on every tick.
+ */
+ if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp) &&
+ rcu_segcblist_nextgp(&rdp->cblist, &gp_state) &&
+ poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full_unordered(&gp_state))
+ return 1;
+
/* Has RCU gone idle with this CPU needing another grace period? */
if (!gp_in_progress && rcu_segcblist_is_enabled(&rdp->cblist) &&
!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp) &&
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-31 0:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-31 0:57 [PATCH 0/12] Expediting normal RCU callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 01/12] rcu: Remove unused rdp parameter from trace_rcu_this_gp() Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 02/12] rcu: Rename struct rcu_gp_oldstate to rcu_gp_seq Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 03/12] rcu/segcblist: Add SRCU and Tasks RCU wrapper functions Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 04/12] rcu/segcblist: Factor out rcu_segcblist_advance_compact() helper Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 05/12] rcu/segcblist: Track segment grace periods with struct rcu_gp_seq Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 06/12] rcu: Add RCU_GET_STATE_NOT_TRACKED for subsystems without expedited GPs Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 07/12] rcu: Enable RCU callbacks to benefit from expedited grace periods Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 08/12] rcu: Update comments for gp_seq and expedited GP tracking Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 09/12] rcu: Wake NOCB rcuog kthreads on expedited grace period completion Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 11/12] rcu: Advance callbacks for expedited GP completion in rcu_core() Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-31 0:57 ` [PATCH RFC 12/12] rcuscale: Add concurrent expedited GP threads for callback scaling tests Paul E. McKenney
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=20260731005732.3530999-10-paulmck@kernel.org \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®