From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org,
mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com,
dvhltc@us.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] scalable classic RCU implementation
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:08:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48B1170C.4050706@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080821234318.GA1754@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +/*
> + * Definition for node within the RCU grace-period-detection hierarchy.
> + */
> +struct rcu_node {
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + unsigned long qsmask; /* CPUs or groups that need to switch in */
> + /* order for current grace period to proceed.*/
> + unsigned long qsmaskinit;
> + /* Per-GP initialization for qsmask. */
>
I'm not sure if a bitmap is the right storage. If I understand the code
correctly, it contains two information:
1) If the bitmap is clear, then all cpus have completed whatever they
need to do.
A counter is more efficient than a bitmap. Especially: It would allow to
choose the optimal fan-out, independent from 32/64 bits.
2) The information if the current cpu must do something to complete the
current period.non
This is a local information, usually (always?) only the current cpu
needs to know if it must do something.
But this doesn't need to be stored in a shared structure, the
information could be stored in a per-cpu structure.
> + /*
> + * Extract the list of ready callbacks, disabling to prevent
> + * races with call_rcu() from interrupt handlers.
> + */
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + list = rdp->nxtlist;
> + rdp->nxtlist = *rdp->nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL];
> + *rdp->nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL] = NULL;
> + tail = rdp->nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL];
> + for (count = RCU_NEXT_SIZE - 1; count >= 0; count--)
> + if (rdp->nxttail[count] == rdp->nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL])
> + rdp->nxttail[count] = &rdp->nxtlist;
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
>
Do you have a description of the events between call_rcu() and the rcu
callback?
Is the following description correct?
__call_rcu() queues in RCU_NEXT_TAIL.
In the middle of the current grace period: rcu_check_quiescent_state()
calls rcu_next_callbacks_are_ready().
Entry now in RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL
** 0.5 cycles: wait until all cpus have completed the current cycle.
rcu_process_gp_end() moves from NEXT_READY_TAIL to WAIT_TAIL
** full grace period
rcu_process_gp_end() moves from WAIT_TAIL to DONE_TAIL
rcu_do_batch() finds the entries in DONE_TAIL and calls the callback.
> +/*
> + * Do softirq processing for the current CPU.
> + */
> static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
> {
> /*
> * Memory references from any prior RCU read-side critical sections
> - * executed by the interrupted code must be see before any RCU
> + * executed by the interrupted code must be seen before any RCU
> * grace-period manupulations below.
> */
>
> smp_mb(); /* See above block comment. */
>
Why this mb()? There was a grace period between the last read side
critical section that might have accessed the pointer.
The rcu internal code already does spin_lock()+spin_unlock(). Isn't that
sufficient?
>
> - __rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_ctrlblk, &__get_cpu_var(rcu_data));
> - __rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_bh_ctrlblk, &__get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_data));
> + __rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_state, &__get_cpu_var(rcu_data));
> + __rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_bh_state, &__get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_data));
>
Have you considered merging RCU_DONE_TAIL for rcu_data and rcu_bh_data?
> +
> +/**
> + * call_rcu - Queue an RCU callback for invocation after a grace period.
> + * @head: structure to be used for queueing the RCU updates.
> + * @func: actual update function to be invoked after the grace period
> + *
> + * The update function will be invoked some time after a full grace
> + * period elapses, in other words after all currently executing RCU
> + * read-side critical sections have completed. RCU read-side critical
> + * sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(),
> + * and may be nested.
> + */
>
The docbook entry is duplicated: They are in include/linux/rcupdate.h
and here.
What about removing one of them?
I would go one step further:
Even add call_rcu_sched() into rcupdate.h. Add a Kconfig bool
"RCU_NEEDS_SCHED" and automatically define either the extern or the #define.
--
Manfred
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-24 8:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-21 23:43 Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 4:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-22 13:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 17:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 18:16 ` Josh Triplett
2008-08-23 16:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-24 2:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 23:29 ` Josh Triplett
2008-08-23 1:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 22:02 ` Josh Triplett
2008-08-26 16:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-27 0:38 ` Josh Triplett
2008-08-27 18:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-27 20:23 ` Josh Triplett
2008-08-27 20:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 10:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 15:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 15:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-27 18:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-24 8:08 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2008-08-24 16:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-24 18:25 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-08-24 21:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 0:07 ` [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v2 " Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-30 0:49 ` [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 " Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-30 9:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-30 14:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-30 15:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-30 19:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-02 13:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-09-02 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-09-02 14:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-30 9:58 ` Lai Jiangshan
2008-08-30 13:32 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-08-30 14:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-31 10:58 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-08-31 17:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-31 17:45 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-08-31 17:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-31 18:18 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-08-31 19:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-30 14:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-01 9:38 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-02 1:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-02 6:18 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-05 15:29 ` [PATCH, RFC] v4 " Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-05 19:33 ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-05 23:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-05 23:52 ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-06 4:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-06 16:37 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-07 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-07 10:18 ` [RFC, PATCH] Add a CPU_STARTING notifier (was: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation) Manfred Spraul
2008-09-07 11:07 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-07 19:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-15 16:02 ` [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-16 16:52 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-16 17:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-16 17:48 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-16 18:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-21 11:09 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-21 21:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-23 23:53 ` [PATCH, RFC] v6 " Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-25 7:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-25 14:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-25 7:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-25 14:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-10 16:09 ` [PATCH, RFC] v7 " Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-12 15:52 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-12 22:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-13 18:03 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-15 1:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-15 8:13 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-15 15:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-22 18:41 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-22 21:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-22 21:24 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-27 16:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-27 19:48 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-27 23:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-28 5:30 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-28 15:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-28 17:21 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-10-28 17:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-17 8:34 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2008-10-17 15:35 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2008-10-17 15:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-10-17 15:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-12-08 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-11-02 20:10 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-11-03 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-11-05 19:48 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-11-05 21:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-11-15 23:20 ` [PATCH, RFC] v8 " 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=48B1170C.4050706@colorfullife.com \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=schamp@sgi.com \
/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