Message-ID: <20150414102505.GA13015@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 12:25:06 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] seqlock: Better document
 raw_write_seqcount_latch()


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:21:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > A shorthand for READ_ONCE + smp_read_barrier_depends() is the shiny
> > > new lockless_dereference()
> > 
> > Related side note - I think people should get used to seeing
> > "smp_load_acquire()". It has well-defined memory ordering properties
> > and should generally perform well on most architectures. It's (much)
> > stronger than lockless_dereference(), and together with
> > smp_store_release() you can make rather clear guarantees about passing
> > data locklessly from one CPU to another.
> > 
> > I'd like to see us use more of the pattern of
> > 
> >  - one thread does:
> > 
> >      .. allocate/create some data
> >       smp_store_release() to "expose it"
> > 
> >  - another thread does:
> > 
> >       smp_load_acquire() to read index/pointer/flag/whatever
> >       .. use the data any damn way you want ..
> > 
> > and we should probably aim to prefer that pattern over a lot of our
> > traditional memory barriers.
> 
> I couldn't agree more!

/me too!

> RCU made a similar move from open-coding smp_read_barrier_depends() 
> to using rcu_dereference() many years ago, and that change made RCU 
> code -much- easier to read and understand.  I believe that moving 
> from smp_mb(), smp_rmb(), and smp_wmb() to smp_store_release() and 
> smp_load_acquire() will provide similar maintainability benefits. 
> Furthermore, when the current code uses smp_mb(), 
> smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire() generate faster code on 
> most architectures.

A similar maintainability argument can be made for locking: 
spin_lock(x) was a big step forward compared to lock_kernel(), 
primarily not because it improves scalability (it often does), but 
because the '(x)' very clearly documents the data structure that is 
being accessed and makes locking and data access bugs a lot more 
visible in the review phase already.

I wish rcu_read_lock() had a data argument, for similar reasons - even 
if it just pointed to a pre-existing lock or an rcu head it never 
touches ;-)

As an example I picked a random file out of the kernel that uses RCU: 
kernel/cpuset.c::validate_change():

static int validate_change(struct cpuset *cur, struct cpuset *trial)
{
	struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
	struct cpuset *c, *par;
	int ret;

	rcu_read_lock();

	/* Each of our child cpusets must be a subset of us */
	ret = -EBUSY;
	cpuset_for_each_child(c, css, cur)
		if (!is_cpuset_subset(c, trial))
			goto out;

	/* Remaining checks don't apply to root cpuset */
	ret = 0;
	if (cur == &top_cpuset)
		goto out;

	par = parent_cs(cur);

	/* On legacy hiearchy, we must be a subset of our parent cpuset. */
	ret = -EACCES;
	if (!cgroup_on_dfl(cur->css.cgroup) && !is_cpuset_subset(trial, par))
		goto out;

	/*
	 * If either I or some sibling (!= me) is exclusive, we can't
	 * overlap
	 */
	ret = -EINVAL;
	cpuset_for_each_child(c, css, par) {
		if ((is_cpu_exclusive(trial) || is_cpu_exclusive(c)) &&
		    c != cur &&
		    cpumask_intersects(trial->cpus_allowed, c->cpus_allowed))
			goto out;
		if ((is_mem_exclusive(trial) || is_mem_exclusive(c)) &&
		    c != cur &&
		    nodes_intersects(trial->mems_allowed, c->mems_allowed))
			goto out;
	}

	/*
	 * Cpusets with tasks - existing or newly being attached - can't
	 * be changed to have empty cpus_allowed or mems_allowed.
	 */
	ret = -ENOSPC;
	if ((cgroup_has_tasks(cur->css.cgroup) || cur->attach_in_progress)) {
		if (!cpumask_empty(cur->cpus_allowed) &&
		    cpumask_empty(trial->cpus_allowed))
			goto out;
		if (!nodes_empty(cur->mems_allowed) &&
		    nodes_empty(trial->mems_allowed))
			goto out;
	}

	/*
	 * We can't shrink if we won't have enough room for SCHED_DEADLINE
	 * tasks.
	 */
	ret = -EBUSY;
	if (is_cpu_exclusive(cur) &&
	    !cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink(cur->cpus_allowed,
				       trial->cpus_allowed))
		goto out;

	ret = 0;
out:
	rcu_read_unlock();
	return ret;
}

So just from taking a glance at that function can you tell me what is 
being RCU protected here? I cannot, I can only guess that it must 
either be cpuset_for_each_child() or maybe the cpumasks or other 
internals.

And if I search the file for call_rcu() it shows me nothing. Only if I 
know that cpusets are integrated with cgroups and I search 
kernel/cgroup.c for call_rcu(), do I find:

        call_rcu(&css->rcu_head, css_free_rcu_fn);

aha!

... or if I drill down 3 levels into cpuset_for_each_child() -> 
css_for_each_child() -> css_next_child() do I see the RCU iteration.

It would have been a lot clearer from the onset, if I had a hint 
syntactically:

	rcu_read_lock(&css->rcu_head);
	...
	rcu_read_unlock(&css->rcu_head);

beyond the reviewer bonus I bet this would allow some extra debugging 
as well (only enabled in debug kernels):

  - for example to make sure we only access a field if _that field_ is 
    RCU locked (reducing the chance of having the right locking for 
    the wrong reason)

  - we could possibly also build lockdep dependencies out of such 
    annotated RCU locking patterns.

  - RCU aware list walking primitives could auto-check that this 
    particular list is properly RCU locked.

This could be introduced gradually by using a different API name:

	rcu_lock(&css->rcu_head);
	...
	rcu_unlock(&css->rcu_head);

(the 'read' is implied in RCU locking anyway.)

... and if you think this approach has any merit, I volunteer the perf 
and sched subsystems as guinea pigs! :-)

What do you think?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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