[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4905567D.9080600@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:49:49 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcupdate: reduce sys's overhead when rcu_barrier()s called
simultaneous
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:38:13PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> rcu_barrier() queues rcu_head on all cpus, it will brings
>> large overhead for a large system which has a lots cpu.
>> this fix reduces sys's overhead when rcu_barrier()s called
>> simultaneous.
>
> Hello, Jiangshan,
>
> If we were to have problems with many concurrent rcu_barrier()
> calls stacking up, this patch looks like it would be a reasonable
> was of addressing those problems.
>
> But do we really have problems with this at the moment?
>
> Thanx, Paul
Hi, Paul,
Thanks, we do not have problems with this at the moment.
I suddenly had an association of ideas to synchronize_srcu(),
so I made use of the ideas in synchronize_srcu() and this patch was made.
Thanx, Lai.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
>> index ad63af8..734850b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
>> @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ enum rcu_barrier {
>>
>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_head, rcu_barrier_head) = {NULL};
>> static atomic_t rcu_barrier_cpu_count;
>> +static unsigned long rcu_barrier_completed;
>> +static unsigned long rcu_barrier_completed_bh;
>> +static unsigned long rcu_barrier_completed_sched;
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(rcu_barrier_mutex);
>> static struct completion rcu_barrier_completion;
>>
>> @@ -60,7 +63,7 @@ static struct completion rcu_barrier_completion;
>> * Awaken the corresponding synchronize_rcu() instance now that a
>> * grace period has elapsed.
>> */
>> -void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
>> +void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
>> {
>> struct rcu_synchronize *rcu;
>>
>> @@ -113,11 +116,20 @@ static void rcu_barrier_func(void *type)
>> * Orchestrate the specified type of RCU barrier, waiting for all
>> * RCU callbacks of the specified type to complete.
>> */
>> -static void _rcu_barrier(enum rcu_barrier type)
>> +static void _rcu_barrier(enum rcu_barrier type, unsigned long *completed)
>> {
>> + unsigned long batch = ACCESS_ONCE(*completed);
>> BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
>> /* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */
>> mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(*completed & 1);
>> + if ((*completed - batch) >= 2) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + (*completed)++;
>> +
>> init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
>> /*
>> * Initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to 1, then invoke
>> @@ -133,6 +145,7 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(enum rcu_barrier type)
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count))
>> complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
>> wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
>> + (*completed)++;
>> mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -141,7 +154,7 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(enum rcu_barrier type)
>> */
>> void rcu_barrier(void)
>> {
>> - _rcu_barrier(RCU_BARRIER_STD);
>> + _rcu_barrier(RCU_BARRIER_STD, &rcu_barrier_completed);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier);
>>
>> @@ -150,7 +163,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier);
>> */
>> void rcu_barrier_bh(void)
>> {
>> - _rcu_barrier(RCU_BARRIER_BH);
>> + _rcu_barrier(RCU_BARRIER_BH, &rcu_barrier_completed_bh);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier_bh);
>>
>> @@ -159,7 +172,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier_bh);
>> */
>> void rcu_barrier_sched(void)
>> {
>> - _rcu_barrier(RCU_BARRIER_SCHED);
>> + _rcu_barrier(RCU_BARRIER_SCHED, &rcu_barrier_completed_sched);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier_sched);
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
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