From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
fweisbec@gmail.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
dhowells@redhat.com, loic.minier@linaro.org,
dhaval.giani@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
houston.jim@comcast.net, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] a local-timer-free version of RCU
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:22:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CD912E9.1080907@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101105210059.GA27317@tsunami.ccur.com>
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com> wrote:
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * rcu_read_lock - mark the beginning of an RCU read-side critical section.
> + *
> + * When synchronize_rcu() is invoked on one CPU while other CPUs
> + * are within RCU read-side critical sections, then the
> + * synchronize_rcu() is guaranteed to block until after all the other
> + * CPUs exit their critical sections. Similarly, if call_rcu() is invoked
> + * on one CPU while other CPUs are within RCU read-side critical
> + * sections, invocation of the corresponding RCU callback is deferred
> + * until after the all the other CPUs exit their critical sections.
> + *
> + * Note, however, that RCU callbacks are permitted to run concurrently
> + * with RCU read-side critical sections. One way that this can happen
> + * is via the following sequence of events: (1) CPU 0 enters an RCU
> + * read-side critical section, (2) CPU 1 invokes call_rcu() to register
> + * an RCU callback, (3) CPU 0 exits the RCU read-side critical section,
> + * (4) CPU 2 enters a RCU read-side critical section, (5) the RCU
> + * callback is invoked. This is legal, because the RCU read-side critical
> + * section that was running concurrently with the call_rcu() (and which
> + * therefore might be referencing something that the corresponding RCU
> + * callback would free up) has completed before the corresponding
> + * RCU callback is invoked.
> + *
> + * RCU read-side critical sections may be nested. Any deferred actions
> + * will be deferred until the outermost RCU read-side critical section
> + * completes.
> + *
> + * It is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical section.
> + */
> +void __rcu_read_lock(void)
> +{
> + struct rcu_data *r;
> +
> + r = &per_cpu(rcu_data, smp_processor_id());
> + if (r->nest_count++ == 0)
> + /*
> + * Set the flags value to show that we are in
> + * a read side critical section. The code starting
> + * a batch uses this to determine if a processor
> + * needs to participate in the batch. Including
> + * a sequence allows the remote processor to tell
> + * that a critical section has completed and another
> + * has begun.
> + */
memory barrier is needed as Paul noted.
> + r->flags = IN_RCU_READ_LOCK | (r->sequence++ << 2);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rcu_read_lock);
> +
> +/**
> + * rcu_read_unlock - marks the end of an RCU read-side critical section.
> + * Check if a RCU batch was started while we were in the critical
> + * section. If so, call rcu_quiescent() join the rendezvous.
> + *
> + * See rcu_read_lock() for more information.
> + */
> +void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> +{
> + struct rcu_data *r;
> + int cpu, flags;
> +
> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + r = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu);
> + if (--r->nest_count == 0) {
> + flags = xchg(&r->flags, 0);
> + if (flags & DO_RCU_COMPLETION)
> + rcu_quiescent(cpu);
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rcu_read_unlock);
It is hardly acceptable when there are memory barriers or
atomic operations in the fast paths of rcu_read_lock(),
rcu_read_unlock().
We need some thing to drive the completion of GP
(and the callbacks process). There is no free lunch,
if the completion of GP is driven by rcu_read_unlock(),
we very probably need memory barriers or atomic operations
in the fast paths of rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_unlock().
We need look for some periodic/continuous events of
the kernel for GP-driven, schedule-tick and schedule() are
most ideal events sources in the kernel I think.
schedule-tick and schedule() are not happened when NO_HZ
and dyntick-hpc, so we need some approaches to fix it. I vote up
for the #5 approach of Paul's.
Also, I propose an unmature idea here.
Don't tell RCU about dyntick-hpc mode, but instead
stop the RCU function of a CPU when the first time RCU disturbs
dyntick-hpc mode or NO_HZ mode.
rcu_read_lock()
if the RCU function of this CPU is not started, start it and
start a RCU timer.
handle rcu_read_lock()
enter NO_HZ
if interrupts are just happened very frequently, do nothing, else:
stop the rcu function and the rcu timer of the current CPU.
exit interrupt:
if this interrupt is just caused by RCU timer && it just disrurbs
dyntick-hpc mode or NO_HZ mode(and will reenter these modes),
stop the rcu function and stop the rcu timer of the current CPU.
schedule-tick:
requeue the rcu timer before it causes an unneeded interrupt.
handle rcu things.
+ Not big changes to RCU, use the same code to handle
dyntick-hpc mode or NO_HZ mode, reuse some code of rcu_offline_cpu()
+ No need to inform RCU of user/kernel transitions.
+ No need to turn scheduling-clock interrupts on
at each user/kernel transition.
- carefully handle some critical region which also implies
rcu critical region.
- Introduce some unneeded interrupt, but it is very infrequency.
Thanks,
Lai
> +
> +/**
> + * 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.
> + */
> +void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
> +{
> + struct rcu_data *r;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + head->func = func;
> + head->next = NULL;
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + r = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu);
> + /*
> + * Avoid mixing new entries with batches which have already
> + * completed or have a grace period in progress.
> + */
> + if (r->nxt.head && rcu_move_if_done(r))
> + rcu_wake_daemon(r);
> +
> + rcu_list_add(&r->nxt, head);
> + if (r->nxtcount++ == 0) {
memory barrier is needed. (before read the rcu_batch)
> + r->nxtbatch = (rcu_batch & RCU_BATCH_MASK) + RCU_INCREMENT;
> + barrier();
> + if (!rcu_timestamp)
> + rcu_timestamp = jiffies ?: 1;
> + }
> + /* If we reach the limit start a batch. */
> + if (r->nxtcount > rcu_max_count) {
> + if (rcu_set_state(RCU_NEXT_PENDING) == RCU_COMPLETE)
> + rcu_start_batch();
> + }
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> +
> +
> +/*
> + * Process the completed RCU callbacks.
> + */
> +static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_data *r)
> +{
> + struct rcu_head *list, *next;
> +
> + local_irq_disable();
> + rcu_move_if_done(r);
> + list = r->done.head;
> + rcu_list_init(&r->done);
> + local_irq_enable();
> +
memory barrier is needed. (after read the rcu_batch)
> + while (list) {
> + next = list->next;
> + list->func(list);
> + list = next;
> + }
> +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-09 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-04 23:21 dyntick-hpc and RCU Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-05 5:27 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-05 5:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-05 15:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-05 20:06 ` Dhaval Giani
2010-11-05 15:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 14:10 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-05 21:00 ` [PATCH] a local-timer-free version of RCU Joe Korty
2010-11-06 19:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-06 19:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-11-06 19:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-11-06 19:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 2:11 ` Udo A. Steinberg
2010-11-08 2:19 ` Udo A. Steinberg
2010-11-08 2:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 15:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-08 19:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 20:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-10 18:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 15:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-08 15:18 ` Joe Korty
2010-11-08 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 19:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 20:51 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-06 20:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-11-09 9:22 ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2010-11-10 15:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-10 17:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-10 17:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-11 4:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-13 22:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-16 1:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-16 13:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-16 15:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-17 0:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-17 1:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-07 20:31 ` [PATCH] An RCU for SMP with a single CPU garbage collector Joe Korty
[not found] ` <20110307210157.GG3104@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2011-03-07 21:16 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-07 21:33 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-07 22:51 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-08 9:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-08 15:57 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-08 22:53 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-10 0:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-10 0:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-09 22:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-03-09 22:15 ` [PATCH 2/4] jrcu: tap rcu_read_unlock Joe Korty
2011-03-10 0:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-10 19:50 ` JRCU Theory of Operation Joe Korty
2011-03-12 14:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-13 0:43 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-13 5:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-13 23:53 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-14 0:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-14 0:55 ` Josh Triplett
2011-03-09 22:16 ` [PATCH 3/4] jrcu: tap might_resched() Joe Korty
2011-03-09 22:17 ` [PATCH 4/4] jrcu: add new stat to /sys/kernel/debug/rcu/rcudata Joe Korty
2011-03-09 22:19 ` [PATCH 1/4] jrcu: remove preempt_enable() tap [resend] Joe Korty
2011-03-12 14:36 ` [PATCH] An RCU for SMP with a single CPU garbage collector Paul E. McKenney
2011-03-13 1:25 ` Joe Korty
2011-03-13 6:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] <757455806.950179.1289232791283.JavaMail.root@sz0076a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
2010-11-08 16:15 ` [PATCH] a local-timer-free version of RCU houston.jim
2010-11-08 19:52 ` 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=4CD912E9.1080907@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=dhaval.giani@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=houston.jim@comcast.net \
--cc=joe.korty@ccur.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loic.minier@linaro.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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
Powered by JetHome