Date:	Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:00:00 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/13] bridge: Add core IGMP snooping support

On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 07:19:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:56:55PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:06:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > Agreed, but the callbacks registered by the call_rcu_bh() might run
> > > at any time, possibly quite some time after the synchronize_rcu_bh()
> > > completes.  For example, the last call_rcu_bh() might register on
> > > one CPU, and the synchronize_rcu_bh() on another CPU.  Then there
> > > is no guarantee that the call_rcu_bh()'s callback will execute before
> > > the synchronize_rcu_bh() returns.
> > > 
> > > In contrast, rcu_barrier_bh() is guaranteed not to return until all
> > > pending RCU-bh callbacks have executed.
> > 
> > You're absolutely right.  I'll send a patch to fix this.
> > 
> > Incidentally, does rcu_barrier imply rcu_barrier_bh? What about
> > synchronize_rcu and synchronize_rcu_bh? The reason I'm asking is
> > that we use a mixture of rcu_read_lock_bh and rcu_read_lock all
> > over the place but only ever use rcu_barrier and synchronize_rcu.
> 
> Hmmm...  rcu_barrier() definitely does -not- imply rcu_barrier_bh(),
> because there are separate sets of callbacks whose execution can
> be throttled separately.  So, while you would expect RCU-bh grace
> periods to complete more quickly, if there was a large number of
> RCU-bh callbacks on a given CPU but very few RCU callbacks, it might
> well take longer for the RCU-bh callbacks to be invoked.
> 
> With TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, if there were no RCU readers but one long-running
> RCU-bh reader, then synchronize_rcu_bh() could return before
> synchronize_rcu() does.
> 
> The simple approach would be to do something like:
> 
> 	synchronize_rcu();
> 	synchronize_rcu_bh();
> 
> on the one hand, and:
> 
> 	rcu_barrier();
> 	rcu_barrier_bh();
> 
> on the other.  However, this is not so good for update-side latency.
> 
> Perhaps we need a primitive that waits for both RCU and RCU-bh in
> parallel?  This is pretty easy for synchronize_rcu() and
> synchronize_rcu_bh(), and probably not too hard for rcu_barrier()
> and rcu_barrier_bh().
> 
> Hmmm...  Do we have the same issue with call_rcu() and call_rcu_bh()?

But before I get too excited...

You really are talking about code like the following, correct?

	rcu_read_lock();
	p = rcu_dereference(global_p);
	do_something_with(p);
	rcu_read_unlock();

	. . .

	rcu_read_lock_bh();
	p = rcu_dereference(global_p);
	do_something_else_with(p);
	rcu_read_unlock_bh();

	. . . 

	spin_lock(&my_lock);
	p = global_p;
	rcu_assign_pointer(global_p, NULL);
	synchronize_rcu();  /* BUG -- also need synchronize_rcu_bh(). */
	kfree(p);
	spin_unlock(&my_lock);

In other words, different readers traversing the same data structure
under different flavors of RCU protection, but then using only one
flavor of RCU grace period during the update?

						Thanx, Paul

> > > > I understand.  However, AFAICS whatever it is that we are destroying
> > > > is taken off the reader's visible data structure before call_rcu_bh.
> > > > Do you have a particular case in mind where this is not the case?
> > > 
> > > I might simply have missed the operation that removed reader
> > > visibility, looking again...
> > > 
> > > Ah, I see it.  The "br->mdb = NULL" in br_multicast_stop() makes
> > > it impossible for the readers to get to any of the data.  Right?
> > 
> > Yes.  The read-side will see it and get nothing, while all write-side
> > paths will see that netif_running is false and exit.
> > 
> > > > > The br_multicast_del_pg() looks to need rcu_read_lock_bh() and
> > > > > rcu_read_unlock_bh() around its loop, if I understand the pointer-walking
> > > > > scheme correctly.
> > > > 
> > > > Any function that modifies the data structure is done under the
> > > > multicast_lock, including br_multicast_del_pg.
> > > 
> > > But spin_lock() does not take the place of rcu_read_lock_bh().
> > > And so, in theory, the RCU-bh grace period could complete between
> > > the time that br_multicast_del_pg() does its call_rcu_bh() and the
> > > "*pp = p->next;" at the top of the next loop iteration.  If so,
> > > then br_multicast_free_pg()'s kfree() will possibly have clobbered
> > > "p->next".  Low probability, yes, but a long-running interrupt
> > > could do the trick.
> > > 
> > > Or is there something I am missing that is preventing an RCU-bh
> > > grace period from completing near the bottom of br_multicast_del_pg()'s
> > > "for" loop?
> > 
> > Well all the locks are taken with BH disabled, this should prevent
> > this problem, no?
> > 
> > > > The read-side is the data path (non-IGMP multicast packets).  The
> > > > sole entry point is br_mdb_get().
> > > 
> > > Hmmm...  So the caller is responsible for rcu_read_lock_bh()?
> > 
> > Yes, all data paths through the bridge operate with BH disabled.
> > 
> > > Shouldn't the br_mdb_get() code path be using hlist_for_each_entry_rcu()
> > > in __br_mdb_ip_get(), then?  Or is something else going on here?
> > 
> > Indeed it should, I'll fix this up too.
> > 
> > Thanks for reviewing Paul!
> > -- 
> > Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
> > Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> > Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> > PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists