Message-ID: <20120308203533.GN2348@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:35:33 -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: [RFC PATCH 5/5 single-thread-version] implement per-domain
 single-thread state machine call_srcu()

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:54:02AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> This patch is on the top of the 4 previous patches(1/6, 2/6, 3/6, 4/6).
> 
> o	state machine is light way and single-threaded, it is preemptible when checking.
> 
> o	state machine is a work_struct. So, there is no thread occupied
> 	by SRCU when the srcu is not actived(no callback). And it does
> 	not sleep(avoid to occupy a thread when sleep).
> 
> o	state machine is the only thread can flip/check/write(*) the srcu_struct,
> 	so we don't need any mutex.
> 	(write(*): except ->per_cpu_ref, ->running, ->batch_queue)
> 
> o	synchronize_srcu() is always call call_srcu().
> 	synchronize_srcu_expedited() is also.
> 	It is OK for mb()-based srcu are extremely fast.
> 
> o	In current kernel, we can expect that there are only 1 callback per gp.
> 	so callback is probably called in the same CPU when it is queued.
> 
> The trip of a callback:
> 	1) ->batch_queue when call_srcu()
> 
> 	2) ->batch_check0 when try to do check_zero
> 
> 	3) ->batch_check1 after finish its first check_zero and the flip
> 
> 	4) ->batch_done after finish its second check_zero
> 
> The current requirement of the callbacks:
> 	The callback will be called inside process context.
> 	The callback should be fast without any sleeping path.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/rcupdate.h |    2 +-
>  include/linux/srcu.h     |   28 +++++-
>  kernel/rcupdate.c        |   24 ++++-
>  kernel/rcutorture.c      |   44 ++++++++-
>  kernel/srcu.c            |  238 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  5 files changed, 259 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 9372174..d98eab2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ extern void rcu_irq_exit(void);
>   * TREE_RCU and rcu_barrier_() primitives in TINY_RCU.
>   */
> 
> -typedef void call_rcu_func_t(struct rcu_head *head,
> +typedef void (*call_rcu_func_t)(struct rcu_head *head,

I don't see what this applies against.  The old patch 5/6 created
a "(*call_rcu_func_t)(struct rcu_head *head," and I don't see what
created the "call_rcu_func_t(struct rcu_head *head,".

>  			     void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
>  void wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_func_t crf);
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> index df8f5f7..56cb774 100644
> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> 
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>  #include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> 
>  struct srcu_struct_array {
>  	unsigned long c[2];
> @@ -39,10 +40,23 @@ struct srcu_struct_array {
>  #define SRCU_REF_MASK		(ULONG_MAX >> SRCU_USAGE_BITS)
>  #define SRCU_USAGE_COUNT	(SRCU_REF_MASK + 1)
> 
> +struct rcu_batch {
> +	struct rcu_head *head, **tail;
> +};
> +
>  struct srcu_struct {
>  	unsigned completed;
>  	struct srcu_struct_array __percpu *per_cpu_ref;
> -	struct mutex mutex;
> +	spinlock_t queue_lock; /* protect ->batch_queue, ->running */
> +	bool running;
> +	/* callbacks just queued */
> +	struct rcu_batch batch_queue;
> +	/* callbacks try to do the first check_zero */
> +	struct rcu_batch batch_check0;
> +	/* callbacks done with the first check_zero and the flip */
> +	struct rcu_batch batch_check1;
> +	struct rcu_batch batch_done;
> +	struct delayed_work work;

Why not use your multiple-tail-pointer trick here?  (The one that is
used in treercu.)

>  	unsigned long snap[NR_CPUS];
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>  	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> @@ -67,12 +81,24 @@ int init_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *sp);
> 
>  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
> 
> +/* draft
> + * queue callbacks which will be invoked after grace period.
> + * The callback will be called inside process context.
> + * The callback should be fast without any sleeping path.
> + */
> +void call_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, struct rcu_head *head,
> +		void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
> +
> +typedef void (*call_srcu_func_t)(struct srcu_struct *sp, struct rcu_head *head,
> +		void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
> +void __wait_srcu_gp(struct srcu_struct *sp, call_srcu_func_t crf);
>  void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *sp);
>  int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp) __acquires(sp);
>  void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx) __releases(sp);
>  void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp);
>  void synchronize_srcu_expedited(struct srcu_struct *sp);
>  long srcu_batches_completed(struct srcu_struct *sp);
> +void srcu_barrier(struct srcu_struct *sp);
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> index a86f174..f9b551f 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>  #include <linux/export.h>
>  #include <linux/hardirq.h>
> +#include <linux/srcu.h>
> 
>  #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>  #include <trace/events/rcu.h>
> @@ -123,20 +124,39 @@ static void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head  *head)
>  	complete(&rcu->completion);
>  }
> 
> -void wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_func_t crf)
> +static void __wait_rcu_gp(void *domain, void *func)
>  {
>  	struct rcu_synchronize rcu;
> 
>  	init_rcu_head_on_stack(&rcu.head);
>  	init_completion(&rcu.completion);
> +
>  	/* Will wake me after RCU finished. */
> -	crf(&rcu.head, wakeme_after_rcu);
> +	if (!domain) {
> +		call_rcu_func_t crf = func;
> +		crf(&rcu.head, wakeme_after_rcu);
> +	} else {
> +		call_srcu_func_t crf = func;
> +		crf(domain, &rcu.head, wakeme_after_rcu);
> +	}
> +
>  	/* Wait for it. */
>  	wait_for_completion(&rcu.completion);
>  	destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&rcu.head);
>  }

Mightn't it be simpler and faster to just have a separate wait_srcu_gp()
that doesn't share code with wait_rcu_gp()?  I am all for sharing code,
but this might be hrting more than helping.

> +
> +void wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_func_t crf)
> +{
> +	__wait_rcu_gp(NULL, crf);
> +}
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wait_rcu_gp);
> 
> +/* srcu.c internel */
> +void __wait_srcu_gp(struct srcu_struct *sp, call_srcu_func_t crf)
> +{
> +	__wait_rcu_gp(sp, crf);
> +}
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
>  /*
>   * wrapper function to avoid #include problems.
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> index 54e5724..40d24d0 100644

OK, so your original patch #6 is folded into this?  I don't have a strong
view either way, just need to know.

> --- a/kernel/rcutorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> @@ -623,6 +623,11 @@ static int srcu_torture_completed(void)
>  	return srcu_batches_completed(&srcu_ctl);
>  }
> 
> +static void srcu_torture_deferred_free(struct rcu_torture *rp)
> +{
> +	call_srcu(&srcu_ctl, &rp->rtort_rcu, rcu_torture_cb);
> +}
> +
>  static void srcu_torture_synchronize(void)
>  {
>  	synchronize_srcu(&srcu_ctl);
> @@ -652,7 +657,7 @@ static struct rcu_torture_ops srcu_ops = {
>  	.read_delay	= srcu_read_delay,
>  	.readunlock	= srcu_torture_read_unlock,
>  	.completed	= srcu_torture_completed,
> -	.deferred_free	= rcu_sync_torture_deferred_free,
> +	.deferred_free	= srcu_torture_deferred_free,
>  	.sync		= srcu_torture_synchronize,
>  	.call		= NULL,
>  	.cb_barrier	= NULL,
> @@ -660,6 +665,21 @@ static struct rcu_torture_ops srcu_ops = {
>  	.name		= "srcu"
>  };
> 
> +static struct rcu_torture_ops srcu_sync_ops = {
> +	.init		= srcu_torture_init,
> +	.cleanup	= srcu_torture_cleanup,
> +	.readlock	= srcu_torture_read_lock,
> +	.read_delay	= srcu_read_delay,
> +	.readunlock	= srcu_torture_read_unlock,
> +	.completed	= srcu_torture_completed,
> +	.deferred_free	= rcu_sync_torture_deferred_free,
> +	.sync		= srcu_torture_synchronize,
> +	.call		= NULL,
> +	.cb_barrier	= NULL,
> +	.stats		= srcu_torture_stats,
> +	.name		= "srcu_sync"
> +};
> +
>  static int srcu_torture_read_lock_raw(void) __acquires(&srcu_ctl)
>  {
>  	return srcu_read_lock_raw(&srcu_ctl);
> @@ -677,7 +697,7 @@ static struct rcu_torture_ops srcu_raw_ops = {
>  	.read_delay	= srcu_read_delay,
>  	.readunlock	= srcu_torture_read_unlock_raw,
>  	.completed	= srcu_torture_completed,
> -	.deferred_free	= rcu_sync_torture_deferred_free,
> +	.deferred_free	= srcu_torture_deferred_free,
>  	.sync		= srcu_torture_synchronize,
>  	.call		= NULL,
>  	.cb_barrier	= NULL,
> @@ -685,6 +705,21 @@ static struct rcu_torture_ops srcu_raw_ops = {
>  	.name		= "srcu_raw"
>  };
> 
> +static struct rcu_torture_ops srcu_raw_sync_ops = {
> +	.init		= srcu_torture_init,
> +	.cleanup	= srcu_torture_cleanup,
> +	.readlock	= srcu_torture_read_lock_raw,
> +	.read_delay	= srcu_read_delay,
> +	.readunlock	= srcu_torture_read_unlock_raw,
> +	.completed	= srcu_torture_completed,
> +	.deferred_free	= rcu_sync_torture_deferred_free,
> +	.sync		= srcu_torture_synchronize,
> +	.call		= NULL,
> +	.cb_barrier	= NULL,
> +	.stats		= srcu_torture_stats,
> +	.name		= "srcu_raw_sync"
> +};
> +
>  static void srcu_torture_synchronize_expedited(void)
>  {
>  	synchronize_srcu_expedited(&srcu_ctl);
> @@ -1673,7 +1708,7 @@ static int rcu_torture_barrier_init(void)
>  	for (i = 0; i < n_barrier_cbs; i++) {
>  		init_waitqueue_head(&barrier_cbs_wq[i]);
>  		barrier_cbs_tasks[i] = kthread_run(rcu_torture_barrier_cbs,
> -						   (void *)i,
> +						   (void *)(long)i,
>  						   "rcu_torture_barrier_cbs");
>  		if (IS_ERR(barrier_cbs_tasks[i])) {
>  			ret = PTR_ERR(barrier_cbs_tasks[i]);
> @@ -1857,7 +1892,8 @@ rcu_torture_init(void)
>  	static struct rcu_torture_ops *torture_ops[] =
>  		{ &rcu_ops, &rcu_sync_ops, &rcu_expedited_ops,
>  		  &rcu_bh_ops, &rcu_bh_sync_ops, &rcu_bh_expedited_ops,
> -		  &srcu_ops, &srcu_raw_ops, &srcu_expedited_ops,
> +		  &srcu_ops, &srcu_sync_ops, &srcu_raw_ops,
> +		  &srcu_raw_sync_ops, &srcu_expedited_ops,
>  		  &sched_ops, &sched_sync_ops, &sched_expedited_ops, };
> 
>  	mutex_lock(&fullstop_mutex);
> diff --git a/kernel/srcu.c b/kernel/srcu.c
> index d101ed5..532f890 100644
> --- a/kernel/srcu.c
> +++ b/kernel/srcu.c
> @@ -34,10 +34,60 @@
>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>  #include <linux/srcu.h>
> 
> +static inline void rcu_batch_init(struct rcu_batch *b)
> +{
> +	b->head = NULL;
> +	b->tail = &b->head;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rcu_batch_queue(struct rcu_batch *b, struct rcu_head *head)
> +{
> +	*b->tail = head;
> +	b->tail = &head->next;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool rcu_batch_empty(struct rcu_batch *b)
> +{
> +	return b->tail == &b->head;
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct rcu_head *rcu_batch_dequeue(struct rcu_batch *b)
> +{
> +	struct rcu_head *head;
> +
> +	if (rcu_batch_empty(b))
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	head = b->head;
> +	b->head = head->next;
> +	if (b->tail == &head->next)
> +		rcu_batch_init(b);
> +
> +	return head;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rcu_batch_move(struct rcu_batch *to, struct rcu_batch *from)
> +{
> +	if (!rcu_batch_empty(from)) {
> +		*to->tail = from->head;
> +		to->tail = from->tail;
> +		rcu_batch_init(from);
> +	}
> +}

And perhaps this is why you don't want the multi-tailed queue?

> +
> +/* single-thread state-machine */
> +static void process_srcu(struct work_struct *work);
> +
>  static int init_srcu_struct_fields(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  {
>  	sp->completed = 0;
> -	mutex_init(&sp->mutex);
> +	spin_lock_init(&sp->queue_lock);
> +	sp->running = false;
> +	rcu_batch_init(&sp->batch_queue);
> +	rcu_batch_init(&sp->batch_check0);
> +	rcu_batch_init(&sp->batch_check1);
> +	rcu_batch_init(&sp->batch_done);
> +	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&sp->work, process_srcu);
>  	sp->per_cpu_ref = alloc_percpu(struct srcu_struct_array);
>  	return sp->per_cpu_ref ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
>  }
> @@ -254,11 +304,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
>   * we repeatedly block for 1-millisecond time periods.  This approach
>   * has done well in testing, so there is no need for a config parameter.
>   */
> -#define SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY	5
> -#define SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_TRYCOUNT	2
> -#define SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_EXP_TRYCOUNT	12
> +#define SRCU_RETRY_CHECK_DELAY	5
> 
> -static void wait_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx, int trycount)
> +static bool try_check_zero(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx, int trycount)
>  {
>  	/*
>  	 * If a reader fetches the index before the ->completed increment,
> @@ -271,19 +319,12 @@ static void wait_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx, int trycount)
>  	 */
>  	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 (trycount > 0) {
> -				trycount--;
> -				udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
> -			} else
> -				schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> -		}
> +	for (;;) {
> +		if (srcu_readers_active_idx_check(sp, idx))
> +			break;
> +		if (--trycount <= 0)
> +			return false;
> +		udelay(SRCU_RETRY_CHECK_DELAY);
>  	}
> 
>  	/*
> @@ -297,6 +338,8 @@ static void wait_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx, int trycount)
>  	 * the next flipping.
>  	 */
>  	smp_mb(); /* E */
> +
> +	return true;
>  }
> 
>  /*
> @@ -308,10 +351,27 @@ static void srcu_flip(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  	ACCESS_ONCE(sp->completed)++;
>  }
> 
> +void call_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, struct rcu_head *head,
> +		void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head))
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	head->next = NULL;
> +	head->func = func;
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&sp->queue_lock, flags);
> +	rcu_batch_queue(&sp->batch_queue, head);
> +	if (!sp->running) {
> +		sp->running = true;
> +		queue_delayed_work(system_nrt_wq, &sp->work, 0);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sp->queue_lock, flags);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_srcu);
> +
>  /*
>   * Helper function for synchronize_srcu() and synchronize_srcu_expedited().
>   */
> -static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, int trycount)
> +static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  {
>  	rcu_lockdep_assert(!lock_is_held(&sp->dep_map) &&
>  			   !lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) &&
> @@ -319,54 +379,7 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, int trycount)
>  			   !lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
>  			   "Illegal synchronize_srcu() in same-type SRCU (or RCU) read-side critical section");
> 
> -	mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Suppose that during the previous grace period, a reader
> -	 * picked up the old value of the index, but did not increment
> -	 * its counter until after the previous instance of
> -	 * __synchronize_srcu() did the counter summation and recheck.
> -	 * That previous grace period was OK because the reader did
> -	 * not start until after the grace period started, so the grace
> -	 * period was not obligated to wait for that reader.
> -	 *
> -	 * However, the current SRCU grace period does have to wait for
> -	 * that reader.  This is handled by invoking wait_idx() on the
> -	 * non-active set of counters (hence sp->completed - 1).  Once
> -	 * wait_idx() returns, we know that all readers that picked up
> -	 * the old value of ->completed and that already incremented their
> -	 * counter will have completed.
> -	 *
> -	 * But what about readers that picked up the old value of
> -	 * ->completed, but -still- have not managed to increment their
> -	 * counter?  We do not need to wait for those readers, because
> -	 * they will have started their SRCU read-side critical section
> -	 * after the current grace period starts.
> -	 *
> -	 * Because it is unlikely that readers will be preempted between
> -	 * fetching ->completed and incrementing their counter, wait_idx()
> -	 * will normally not need to wait.
> -	 */
> -	wait_idx(sp, (sp->completed - 1) & 0x1, trycount);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Now that wait_idx() has waited for the really old readers,
> -	 *
> -	 * Flip the readers' index by incrementing ->completed, then wait
> -	 * until there are no more readers using the counters referenced by
> -	 * the old index value.  (Recall that the index is the bottom bit
> -	 * of ->completed.)
> -	 *
> -	 * 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 the next __synchronize_srcu() invoking wait_idx() for such
> -	 * readers before starting a new grace period.
> -	 */
> -	srcu_flip(sp);
> -	wait_idx(sp, (sp->completed - 1) & 0x1, trycount);
> -
> -	mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
> +	__wait_srcu_gp(sp, call_srcu);
>  }
> 
>  /**
> @@ -385,7 +398,7 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, int trycount)
>   */
>  void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  {
> -	__synchronize_srcu(sp, SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_TRYCOUNT);
> +	__synchronize_srcu(sp);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu);
> 
> @@ -406,10 +419,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu);
>   */
>  void synchronize_srcu_expedited(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  {
> -	__synchronize_srcu(sp, SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_EXP_TRYCOUNT);
> +	__synchronize_srcu(sp);
>  }

OK, I'll bite...  Why aren't synchronize_srcu_expedited() and
synchronize_srcu() different?

							Thanx, Paul

>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu_expedited);
> 
> +void srcu_barrier(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> +{
> +	__synchronize_srcu(sp);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_barrier);
> +
>  /**
>   * srcu_batches_completed - return batches completed.
>   * @sp: srcu_struct on which to report batch completion.
> @@ -423,3 +442,84 @@ long srcu_batches_completed(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  	return sp->completed;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_batches_completed);
> +
> +#define SRCU_CALLBACK_BATCH	10
> +#define SRCU_INTERVAL		1
> +
> +static void srcu_collect_new(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> +{
> +	if (!rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_queue)) {
> +		spin_lock_irq(&sp->queue_lock);
> +		rcu_batch_move(&sp->batch_check0, &sp->batch_queue);
> +		spin_unlock_irq(&sp->queue_lock);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void srcu_advance_batches(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> +{
> +	int idx = 1 - (sp->completed & 0x1UL);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * SRCU read-side critical sections are normally short, so check
> +	 * twice after a flip.
> +	 */
> +	if (!rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_check1) ||
> +	    !rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_check0)) {
> +		if (try_check_zero(sp, idx, 1)) {
> +			rcu_batch_move(&sp->batch_done, &sp->batch_check1);
> +			rcu_batch_move(&sp->batch_check1, &sp->batch_check0);
> +			if (!rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_check1)) {
> +				srcu_flip(sp);
> +				if (try_check_zero(sp, 1 - idx, 2)) {
> +					rcu_batch_move(&sp->batch_done,
> +						&sp->batch_check1);
> +				}
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void srcu_invoke_callbacks(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	struct rcu_head *head;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < SRCU_CALLBACK_BATCH; i++) {
> +		head = rcu_batch_dequeue(&sp->batch_done);
> +		if (!head)
> +			break;
> +		head->func(head);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void srcu_reschedule(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> +{
> +	bool running = true;
> +
> +	if (rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_done) &&
> +	    rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_check1) &&
> +	    rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_check0) &&
> +	    rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_queue)) {
> +		spin_lock_irq(&sp->queue_lock);
> +		if (rcu_batch_empty(&sp->batch_queue)) {
> +			sp->running = false;
> +			running = false;
> +		}
> +		spin_unlock_irq(&sp->queue_lock);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (running)
> +		queue_delayed_work(system_nrt_wq, &sp->work, SRCU_INTERVAL);
> +}
> +
> +static void process_srcu(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct srcu_struct *sp;
> +
> +	sp = container_of(work, struct srcu_struct, work.work);
> +
> +	srcu_collect_new(sp);
> +	srcu_advance_batches(sp);
> +	srcu_invoke_callbacks(sp);
> +	srcu_reschedule(sp);
> +}
> 
> 
> 

--
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