Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:51:16 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: Provide polling interfaces for
 Tree RCU grace periods

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:58:54PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 04:26:30PM -0800, paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > 
> > There is a need for a non-blocking polling interface for RCU grace
> > periods, so this commit supplies start_poll_synchronize_rcu() and
> > poll_state_synchronize_rcu() for this purpose.  Note that the existing
> > get_state_synchronize_rcu() may be used if future grace periods are
> > inevitable (perhaps due to a later call_rcu() invocation).  The new
> > start_poll_synchronize_rcu() is to be used if future grace periods
> > might not otherwise happen.  Finally, poll_state_synchronize_rcu()
> > provides a lockless check for a grace period having elapsed since
> > the corresponding call to either of the get_state_synchronize_rcu()
> > or start_poll_synchronize_rcu().
> > 
> > As with get_state_synchronize_rcu(), the return value from either
> > get_state_synchronize_rcu() or start_poll_synchronize_rcu() is passed in
> > to a later call to either poll_state_synchronize_rcu() or the existing
> > (might_sleep) cond_synchronize_rcu().
> 
> It's all a matter of personal taste but if I may suggest some namespace
> modifications:
> 
> get_state_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_poll_start_raw()
> start_poll_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_poll_start()
> poll_state_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_poll()
> cond_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_cond()
> 
> But it's up to you really.

I am concerned about starting anything "synchronize_rcu" if that
thing doesn't unconditionally wait for a grace period.  "What do
you mean that there was no grace period?  Don't you see that call to
synchronize_rcu_poll_start_raw()???"

This objection doesn't apply to cond_synchronize_rcu(), but it is
already in use, so any name change should be worked with the users.
All two of them.  ;-)

> >  /**
> > + * start_poll_state_synchronize_rcu - Snapshot and start RCU grace period
> > + *
> > + * Returns a cookie that is used by a later call to cond_synchronize_rcu()
> 
> It may be worth noting that calling start_poll_synchronize_rcu() and then
> pass the cookie to cond_synchronize_rcu() soon after may end up waiting for
> one more grace period.

You mean this sequence of events?

1.	cookie = start_poll_synchronize_rcu()

2.	The grace period corresponding to cookie is almost over...

3.	cond_synchronize_rcu() checks the cookie and sees that the
	grace period has not yet expired.

4.	The grace period corresponding to cookie completes.

5.	Someone else starts a grace period.

6.	cond_synchronize_rcu() invokes synchronize_rcu(), which waits
	for the just-started grace period plus another grace period.
	Thus, there has been no fewer than three full grace periods
	between the call to start_poll_synchronize_rcu() and the
	return from cond_synchronize_rcu().

Yes, this can happen!  And it can be worse, for example, it is quite
possible that cond_synchronize_rcu() would be preempted for multiple
grace periods at step 5, in which case it would still wait for almost
two additional grace periods.

Or are you thinking of something else?

> > + * or poll_state_synchronize_rcu() to determine whether or not a full
> > + * grace period has elapsed in the meantime.  If the needed grace period
> > + * is not already slated to start, notifies RCU core of the need for that
> > + * grace period.
> > + *
> > + * Interrupts must be enabled for the case where it is necessary to awaken
> > + * the grace-period kthread.
> > + */
> > +unsigned long start_poll_synchronize_rcu(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	unsigned long gp_seq = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> > +	bool needwake;
> > +	struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > +	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> [...]
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * poll_state_synchronize_rcu - Conditionally wait for an RCU grace period
> > + *
> > + * @oldstate: return from call to get_state_synchronize_rcu() or start_poll_synchronize_rcu()
> > + *
> > + * If a full RCU grace period has elapsed since the earlier call from
> > + * which oldstate was obtained, return @true, otherwise return @false.
> > + * Otherwise, invoke synchronize_rcu() to wait for a full grace period.
> 
> Rephrase suggestion for the last sentence:
> 
> "In case of failure, it's up to the caller to try polling again later or
> invoke synchronize_rcu() to wait for a new full grace period to complete."

How about like this?

/**
 * poll_state_synchronize_rcu - Conditionally wait for an RCU grace period
 *
 * @oldstate: return from call to get_state_synchronize_rcu() or start_poll_synchronize_rcu()
 *
 * If a full RCU grace period has elapsed since the earlier call from
 * which oldstate was obtained, return @true, otherwise return @false.
 * If @false is returned, it is the caller's responsibilty to invoke this
 * function later on until it does return @true.  Alternatively, the caller
 * can explicitly wait for a grace period, for example, by passing @oldstate
 * to cond_synchronize_rcu() or by directly invoking synchronize_rcu().
 *
 * Yes, this function does not take counter wrap into account.
 * But counter wrap is harmless.  If the counter wraps, we have waited for
 * more than 2 billion grace periods (and way more on a 64-bit system!).
 * Those needing to keep oldstate values for very long time periods
 * (many hours even on 32-bit systems) should check them occasionally
 * and either refresh them or set a flag indicating that the grace period
 * has completed.
 */

> In any case: Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>

Thank you, I will apply it at the next rebase.

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists