mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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;
> +       }
> +}

  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