Date:	Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:01:09 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 RFC paul/rcu/srcu] srcu: flip only once for every
 grace period

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 04:06:01PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 05:29 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>From 4ddf62aaf2c4ebe6b9d4a1c596e8b43a678f1f0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:12:02 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH 3/3 RFC paul/rcu/srcu] srcu: flip only once for every grace period
> > 
> > flip_idx_and_wait() is not changed, and is split as two functions
> > and only a short comments is added for smp_mb() E.
> > 
> > __synchronize_srcu() use a different algorithm for "leak" readers.
> > detail is in the comments of the patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/srcu.c |  105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> >  1 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/srcu.c b/kernel/srcu.c
> > index a51ac48..346f9d7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/srcu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/srcu.c
> > @@ -249,6 +249,37 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
> >   */
> >  #define SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY 5
> >  
> > +static void wait_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx, bool expedited)
> > +{
> > +	int trycount = 0;
> 
> Hi, Paul
> 
> 	smp_mb() D also needs to be moved here, could you fix it before push it.
> I thought it(smp_mb()) always here in my mind, wrong assumption.

Good catch -- I should have seen this myself.  I committed this and pushed
it to:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/srcu

> Sorry.

Not a problem, though it does point out the need for review and testing.
So I am feeling a bit nervous about pushing this into 3.4, and am
beginning to think that it needs mechanical proof as well as more testing.

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
> Lai
> 
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * SRCU read-side critical sections are normally short, so wait
> > +	 * a small amount of time before possibly blocking.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!srcu_readers_active_idx_check(sp, idx)) {
> > +		udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
> > +		while (!srcu_readers_active_idx_check(sp, idx)) {
> > +			if (expedited && ++ trycount < 10)
> > +				udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
> > +			else
> > +				schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The following smp_mb() E pairs with srcu_read_unlock()'s
> > +	 * smp_mb C to ensure that if srcu_readers_active_idx_check()
> > +	 * sees srcu_read_unlock()'s counter decrement, then any
> > +	 * of the current task's subsequent code will happen after
> > +	 * that SRCU read-side critical section.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * It also ensures the order between the above waiting and
> > +	 * the next flipping.
> > +	 */
> > +	smp_mb(); /* E */
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Flip the readers' index by incrementing ->completed, then wait
> >   * until there are no more readers using the counters referenced by
> > @@ -258,12 +289,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
> >   * Of course, it is possible that a reader might be delayed for the
> >   * full duration of flip_idx_and_wait() between fetching the
> >   * index and incrementing its counter.  This possibility is handled
> > - * by __synchronize_srcu() invoking flip_idx_and_wait() twice.
> > + * by the next __synchronize_srcu() invoking wait_idx() for such readers
> > + * before start a new grace perioad.
> >   */
> >  static void flip_idx_and_wait(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool expedited)
> >  {
> >  	int idx;
> > -	int trycount = 0;
> >  
> >  	idx = sp->completed++ & 0x1;
> >  
> > @@ -278,28 +309,7 @@ static void flip_idx_and_wait(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool expedited)
> >  	 */
> >  	smp_mb(); /* D */
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * SRCU read-side critical sections are normally short, so wait
> > -	 * a small amount of time before possibly blocking.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (!srcu_readers_active_idx_check(sp, idx)) {
> > -		udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
> > -		while (!srcu_readers_active_idx_check(sp, idx)) {
> > -			if (expedited && ++ trycount < 10)
> > -				udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
> > -			else
> > -				schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> > -		}
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	/*
> > -	 * The following smp_mb() E pairs with srcu_read_unlock()'s
> > -	 * smp_mb C to ensure that if srcu_readers_active_idx_check()
> > -	 * sees srcu_read_unlock()'s counter decrement, then any
> > -	 * of the current task's subsequent code will happen after
> > -	 * that SRCU read-side critical section.
> > -	 */
> > -	smp_mb(); /* E */
> > +	wait_idx(sp, idx, expedited);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > @@ -307,8 +317,6 @@ static void flip_idx_and_wait(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool expedited)
> >   */
> >  static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool expedited)
> >  {
> > -	int idx = 0;
> > -
> >  	rcu_lockdep_assert(!lock_is_held(&sp->dep_map) &&
> >  			   !lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) &&
> >  			   !lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) &&
> > @@ -318,27 +326,42 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool expedited)
> >  	mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * If there were no helpers, then we need to do two flips of
> > -	 * the index.  The first flip is required if there are any
> > -	 * outstanding SRCU readers even if there are no new readers
> > -	 * running concurrently with the first counter flip.
> > -	 *
> > -	 * The second flip is required when a new reader picks up
> > +	 * When in the previous grace perioad, if a reader picks up
> >  	 * the old value of the index, but does not increment its
> >  	 * counter until after its counters is summed/rechecked by
> > -	 * srcu_readers_active_idx_check().  In this case, the current SRCU
> > +	 * srcu_readers_active_idx_check(). In this case, the previous SRCU
> >  	 * grace period would be OK because the SRCU read-side critical
> > -	 * section started after this SRCU grace period started, so the
> > +	 * section started after the SRCU grace period started, so the
> >  	 * grace period is not required to wait for the reader.
> >  	 *
> > -	 * However, the next SRCU grace period would be waiting for the
> > -	 * other set of counters to go to zero, and therefore would not
> > -	 * wait for the reader, which would be very bad.  To avoid this
> > -	 * bad scenario, we flip and wait twice, clearing out both sets
> > -	 * of counters.
> > +	 * However, such leftover readers affect this new SRCU grace period.
> > +	 * So we have to wait for such readers. This wait_idx() should be
> > +	 * considerred as the wait_idx() in the flip_idx_and_wait() of
> > +	 * the previous grace perioad except that it is for leftover readers
> > +	 * started before this synchronize_srcu(). So when it returns,
> > +	 * there is no leftover readers that starts before this grace period.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * If there are some leftover readers that do not increment its
> > +	 * counter until after its counters is summed/rechecked by
> > +	 * srcu_readers_active_idx_check(), In this case, this SRCU
> > +	 * grace period would be OK as above comments says. We defines
> > +	 * such readers as leftover-leftover readers, we consider these
> > +	 * readers fteched index of (sp->completed + 1), it means they
> > +	 * are considerred as exactly the same as the readers after this
> > +	 * grace period.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * wait_idx() is expected very fast, because leftover readers
> > +	 * are unlikely produced.
> >  	 */
> > -	for (; idx < 2; idx++)
> > -		flip_idx_and_wait(sp, expedited);
> > +	wait_idx(sp, (sp->completed - 1) & 0x1, expedited);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Starts a new grace period, this flip is required if there are
> > +	 * any outstanding SRCU readers even if there are no new readers
> > +	 * running concurrently with the counter flip.
> > +	 */
> > +	flip_idx_and_wait(sp, expedited);
> > +
> >  	mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
> >  }
> >  
> 

--
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