[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72dffe43-b746-6d75-1f6a-9936d709be63@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:44:49 +0530
From: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/5] srcu: Make Tiny SRCU use multi-bit
grace-period counter
Hi Paul,
On 11/17/2020 6:10 AM, paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
>
> There is a need for a polling interface for SRCU grace periods. This
> polling needs to distinguish between an SRCU instance being idle on the
> one hand or in the middle of a grace period on the other. This commit
> therefore converts the Tiny SRCU srcu_struct structure's srcu_idx from
> a defacto boolean to a free-running counter, using the bottom bit to
> indicate that a grace period is in progress. The second-from-bottom
> bit is thus used as the index returned by srcu_read_lock().
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/20201112201547.GF3365678@moria.home.lan/
> Reported-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/srcutiny.h | 4 ++--
> kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c | 5 +++--
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/srcutiny.h b/include/linux/srcutiny.h
> index 5a5a194..fed4a2d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/srcutiny.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcutiny.h
> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
>
> struct srcu_struct {
> short srcu_lock_nesting[2]; /* srcu_read_lock() nesting depth. */
> - short srcu_idx; /* Current reader array element. */
> + unsigned short srcu_idx; /* Current reader array element in bit 0x2. */
> u8 srcu_gp_running; /* GP workqueue running? */
> u8 srcu_gp_waiting; /* GP waiting for readers? */
> struct swait_queue_head srcu_wq;
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static inline int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> {
> int idx;
>
> - idx = READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx);
> + idx = (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx) & 0x2) / 2;
Should we use bit 0x2 of (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx) + 1) , if GP
(srcu_drive_gp()) is in progress? Or am I missing something here?
idx = ((READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx) +1) & 0x2) / 2;
Also, any reason for using divison instead of shift; something to
do with 16-bit srcu_idx which I am missing here?
Thanks
Neeraj
> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx], ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx] + 1);
> return idx;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> index 6208c1d..5598cf6 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> @@ -124,11 +124,12 @@ void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
> ssp->srcu_cb_head = NULL;
> ssp->srcu_cb_tail = &ssp->srcu_cb_head;
> local_irq_enable();
> - idx = ssp->srcu_idx;
> - WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx, !ssp->srcu_idx);
> + idx = (ssp->srcu_idx & 0x2) / 2;
> + WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx, ssp->srcu_idx + 1);
> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_waiting, true); /* srcu_read_unlock() wakes! */
> swait_event_exclusive(ssp->srcu_wq, !READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx]));
> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_waiting, false); /* srcu_read_unlock() cheap. */
> + WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx, ssp->srcu_idx + 1);
>
> /* Invoke the callbacks we removed above. */
> while (lh) {
>
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists