Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:44:51 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)

* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:19:02PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:49:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:33:54PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > > > From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:11:31 +0200
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > >> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > >>> The counters are the bigger problem, otherwise we could just free
> > > > > >>> table
> > > > > >>> info via rcu.  Do we really have to support: replace where the counter
> > > > > >>> values coming out to user space are always exactly accurate, or is it
> > > > > >>> allowed to replace a rule and maybe lose some counter ticks (worst
> > > > > >>> case
> > > > > >>> NCPU-1).
> > > > > >> Why not just read the counters fromt he old one at RCU free time (they
> > > > > >> are guaranteed to be stable at that point, since we're all done with
> > > > > >> those entries), and apply them at that point to the current setup?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We need the counters immediately to copy them to userspace, so waiting
> > > > > > for an asynchronous RCU free is not going to work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It just occurred to me that since all netfilter packet handling
> > > > > goes through one place, we could have a sort-of "netfilter RCU"
> > > > > of sorts to solve this problem.
> > > > 
> > > > OK, I am putting one together...
> > > > 
> > > > It will be needed sooner or later, though I suspect per-CPU locking
> > > > would work fine in this case.
> > > 
> > > And here is a crude first cut.  Untested, probably does not even compile.
> > > 
> > > Straight conversion of Mathieu Desnoyers's user-space RCU implementation
> > > at git://lttng.org/userspace-rcu.git to the kernel (and yes, I did help
> > > a little, but he must bear the bulk of the guilt).
> > 
> > I'm innocent, I swear ;-)
> 
> That is what they -all- say!!!  ;-)
> 
> > That should give very impressive performance results.
> 
> I wouldn't expect more than about three or four orders of magnitude
> improvement on the update side compared to Classic RCU, but who knows?
> 
> > Please see comments below,
> > 
> > >   Pick on srcu.h
> > > and srcu.c out of sheer laziness.  User-space testing gives deep
> > > sub-microsecond grace-period latencies, so should be fast enough, at
> > > least if you don't mind two smp_call_function() invocations per grace
> > > period and spinning on each instance of a per-CPU variable.
> > > 
> > > Again, I believe per-CPU locking should work fine for the netfilter
> > > counters, but I guess "friends don't let friends use hashed locks".
> > > (I would not know for sure, never having used them myself, except of
> > > course to protect hash tables.)
> > > 
> > > Most definitely -not- for inclusion at this point.  Next step is to hack
> > > up the relevant rcutorture code and watch it explode on contact.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  include/linux/srcu.h |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  kernel/srcu.c        |   63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 93 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > index aca0eee..4577cd0 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > @@ -50,4 +50,34 @@ void srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx) __releases(sp);
> > >  void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp);
> > >  long srcu_batches_completed(struct srcu_struct *sp);
> > >  
> > > +/* Single bit for grace-period index, low-order bits are nesting counter. */
> > > +#define RCU_FGP_COUNT		1UL
> > > +#define RCU_FGP_PARITY		(1UL << (sizeof(long) << 2))
> > > +#define RCU_FGP_NEST_MASK	(RCU_FGP_PARITY - 1)
> > > +
> > > +extern long rcu_fgp_ctr;
> > > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(long, rcu_fgp_active_readers);
> > > +
> > > +static inline void rcu_read_lock_fgp(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	long tmp;
> > > +	long *uarp;
> > > +
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > +	uarp = &__get_cpu_var(rcu_fgp_active_readers);
> > 
> > OK, so we are translating the original implementation from per-thread to
> > per-cpu, with preemption disabled. Fine with me if we can't afford the
> > per-thread unsigned long nor can't afford to iterate on each thread when
> > waiting for RCU quiescent state.
> 
> The iterating on each thread was what stopped me.
> 
> > > +	tmp = *uarp;
> > > +	if (likely(!(tmp & RCU_FGP_NEST_MASK)))
> > > +		*uarp = rcu_fgp_ctr;  /* Outermost rcu_read_lock(). */
> > 
> > ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) could not hurt here I think. Given the
> > surrounding code, that does not seem like a necessity, but that would
> > express that it is really an atomic read.
> 
> I believe that it is safe.  Only one bit of rcu_fgp_ctr ever changes,
> so we should be immune from load tearing.  We only load it once and
> only do one thing with it, and we have a barrier() before (as part
> of preempt_disable()) and after, so I don't think that the compiler
> has much latitude here.  In theory, we could get store tearing through
> *uarp, but if gcc did that, much of the kernel would go down in flames.
> 
> In contrast, in the user-mode version, there was no barrier() on entry,
> permitting the compiler much more mischief.
> 

True.

> > > +	else
> > > +		*uarp = tmp + RCU_FGP_COUNT;  /* Nested rcu_read_lock(). */
> > > +	barrier();
> > 
> > I kind of expect an IPI with a smp_mb() to promote this barrier() to a
> > smp_mb() when the update side needs to wait for a quiescent state. I
> > guess a comment telling this here would not hurt.
> 
> If you insist.  ;-)
> 
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void rcu_read_unlock_fgp(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	barrier();
> > 
> > Same here.
> 
> Likewise!
> 
> > > +	__get_cpu_var(rcu_fgp_active_readers)--;
> > > +	preempt_enable();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  #endif
> > > diff --git a/kernel/srcu.c b/kernel/srcu.c
> > > index b0aeeaf..a5dc464 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/srcu.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/srcu.c
> > > @@ -255,3 +255,66 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_read_lock);
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_read_unlock);
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu);
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_batches_completed);
> > > +
> > > +DEFINE_MUTEX(rcu_fgp_mutex);
> > > +long rcu_fgp_ctr = RCU_FGP_COUNT;
> > 
> > Saying why we populate the value 1 here (RCU_FGP_COUNT) as an
> > optimization for the read-side might help understanding this choice.
> 
> Good point, done.
> 
> > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(long, rcu_fgp_active_readers);
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Determine if the specified counter value indicates that we need to
> > > + * wait on the corresponding CPU to exit an rcu_fgp read-side critical
> > > + * section.  Return non-zero if so.
> > > + *
> > > + * Assumes that rcu_fgp_mutex is held, and thus that rcu_fgp_ctr is
> > > + * unchanging.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline int rcu_old_fgp_ongoing(long *value)
> > > +{
> > > +	long v = ACCESS_ONCE(*value);
> > > +
> > > +	return (v & RCU_FGP_NEST_MASK) &&
> > > +	       ((v ^ rcu_fgp_ctr) & RCU_FGP_PARITY);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	int cpu;
> > > +	long *uarp;
> > > +
> > > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > +		uarp = &per_cpu(rcu_fgp_active_readers, cpu);
> > > +		while (rcu_old_fgp_ongoing(uarp))
> > > +			cpu_relax();
> > 
> > I would be tempted to add a comment here telling hot cpu hotunplug
> > cannot let us wait forever, given all read-side critical sections we can
> > be busy-waiting for are required to have preemption disabled, and are
> > therefore cpu-hotplug safe.
> 
> Good point -- I hadn't even considered CPU hotplug, so got very lucky.
> 
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rcu_fgp_do_mb(void *unused)
> > > +{
> > > +	smp_mb();  /* Each CPU does a memory barrier. */
> > > +}
> > 
> > Ah, here it is. Commenting that it matches the two barrier()s I identified
> > above would be good.
> 
> Good point, reworded.
> 
> > > +
> > > +void synchronize_rcu_fgp(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	mutex_lock(&rcu_fgp_mutex);
> > > +	
> > > +	/* CPUs must see earlier change before parity flip. */
> > > +	smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1);
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Call a function on all other processors
> >  */
> > int smp_call_function(void(*func)(void *info), void *info, int wait);
> > 
> > I guess you meant on_each_cpu ? That should include "self", given we
> > also need the smp_mb().
> 
> Hmmm...  Why do we need "self"?  Because synchronize_rcu_fgp() blocks,
> it had jolly well better not be within a read-side critical section.
> 
> So, what am I missing here?
> 

I mean that I think we also need some smp_mb()s on the writer side,
don't we ? If we want the changes done by the writer (assign pointer) to
be shown to the readers before the writer starts flipping the parity, a
smp_mb() is needed at the beginning of synchronize_rcu_fgp() (actually
at the same location where you call the rcu_fgp_do_mb ipis), same at the
end (so we order parity flipping with the next assign pointer).

Or maybe it's getting late and I am missing the obvious.

Mathieu

> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * We must flip twice to correctly handle tasks that stall
> > > +	 * in rcu_read_lock_fgp() between the time that they fetch
> > > +	 * rcu_fgp_ctr and the time that the store to their CPU's
> > > +	 * rcu_fgp_active_readers.  No matter when they resume
> > > +	 * execution, we will wait for them to get to the corresponding
> > > +	 * rcu_read_unlock_fgp().
> > > +	 */
> > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY;  /* flip parity 0 -> 1 */
> > > +	rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state();	     /* wait for old readers */
> > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY;  /* flip parity 1 -> 0 */
> > > +	rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state();	     /* wait for old readers */
> > > +
> > > +	/* Prevent CPUs from reordering out of prior RCU critical sections. */
> > > +	smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1);
> > > +
> > 
> > Same as above.
> 
> Same as above.  ;-)
> 
> > Mathieu, who can still recognise his original userspace implementation
> > :-)
> 
> Yeah, I never was all that good at disguising code anyway.  But I did
> keep a couple of changes.  ;-)
> 
> Updated patch below.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> And here is a crude second cut.  Untested, probably does not even compile.
> 
> Straight conversion of Mathieu Desnoyers's user-space RCU implementation
> at git://lttng.org/userspace-rcu.git to the kernel (and yes, I did help
> a little, but he must bear the bulk of the guilt).  Pick on srcu.h
> and srcu.c out of sheer laziness.  User-space testing gives deep
> sub-microsecond grace-period latencies, so should be fast enough, at
> least if you don't mind two smp_call_function() invocations per grace
> period and spinning on each instance of a per-CPU variable.
> 
> Again, I believe per-CPU locking should work fine for the netfilter
> counters, but I guess "friends don't let friends use hashed locks".
> (I would not know for sure, never having used them myself, except of
> course to protect hash tables.)
> 
> Most definitely -not- for inclusion at this point.  Next step is to hack
> up the relevant rcutorture code and watch it explode on contact.  ;-)
> 
> Changes since v1:
> 
> o	Applied Mathieu's feedback.
> 
> o	Added docbook headers and other comments.
> 
> o	Added the rcu_fgp_batches_completed API required by rcutorture.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
>  include/linux/srcu.h |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/srcu.c        |   89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 131 insertions(+)
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists