Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:19:19 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu, tj@...nel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/46] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of
 Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Lai,
>>
>> On 02/25/2013 09:23 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> Hi, Srivatsa,
>>>
>>> The target of the whole patchset is nice for me.
>>
>> Cool! Thanks :-)
>>
>>> A question: How did you find out the such usages of
>>> "preempt_disable()" and convert them? did all are converted?
>>>
>>
>> Well, I scanned through the source tree for usages which implicitly
>> disabled CPU offline and converted them over. Its not limited to uses
>> of preempt_disable() alone - even spin_locks, rwlocks, local_irq_disable()
>> etc also help disable CPU offline. So I tried to dig out all such uses
>> and converted them. However, since the merge window is open, a lot of
>> new code is flowing into the tree. So I'll have to rescan the tree to
>> see if there are any more places to convert.
>>
>>> And I think the lock is too complex and reinvent the wheel, why don't
>>> you reuse the lglock?
>>
>> lglocks? No way! ;-) See below...
>>
>>> I wrote an untested draft here.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lai
>>>
>>> PS: Some HA tools(I'm writing one) which takes checkpoints of
>>> virtual-machines frequently, I guess this patchset can speedup the
>>> tools.
>>>
>>> From 01db542693a1b7fc6f9ece45d57cb529d9be5b66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:14:27 +0800
>>> Subject: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
>>>
>>> locality via lglock(trylock)
>>> read-preference read-write-lock via fallback rwlock_t
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/lglock.h |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  kernel/lglock.c        |   45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/lglock.h b/include/linux/lglock.h
>>> index 0d24e93..30fe887 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/lglock.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/lglock.h
>>> @@ -67,4 +67,35 @@ void lg_local_unlock_cpu(struct lglock *lg, int cpu);
>>>  void lg_global_lock(struct lglock *lg);
>>>  void lg_global_unlock(struct lglock *lg);
>>>
>>> +struct lgrwlock {
>>> +     unsigned long __percpu *fallback_reader_refcnt;
>>> +     struct lglock lglock;
>>> +     rwlock_t fallback_rwlock;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define DEFINE_LGRWLOCK(name)                                                \
>>> +     static DEFINE_PER_CPU(arch_spinlock_t, name ## _lock)           \
>>> +     = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;                                    \
>>> +     static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, name ## _refcnt);          \
>>> +     struct lgrwlock name = {                                        \
>>> +             .fallback_reader_refcnt = &name ## _refcnt,             \
>>> +             .lglock = { .lock = &name ## _lock } }
>>> +
>>> +#define DEFINE_STATIC_LGRWLOCK(name)                                 \
>>> +     static DEFINE_PER_CPU(arch_spinlock_t, name ## _lock)           \
>>> +     = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;                                    \
>>> +     static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, name ## _refcnt);          \
>>> +     static struct lgrwlock name = {                                 \
>>> +             .fallback_reader_refcnt = &name ## _refcnt,             \
>>> +             .lglock = { .lock = &name ## _lock } }
>>> +
>>> +static inline void lg_rwlock_init(struct lgrwlock *lgrw, char *name)
>>> +{
>>> +     lg_lock_init(&lgrw->lglock, name);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>>  #endif
>>> diff --git a/kernel/lglock.c b/kernel/lglock.c
>>> index 6535a66..463543a 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/lglock.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/lglock.c
>>> @@ -87,3 +87,48 @@ void lg_global_unlock(struct lglock *lg)
>>>       preempt_enable();
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_global_unlock);
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct lglock *lg = &lgrw->lglock;
>>> +
>>> +     preempt_disable();
>>> +     if (likely(!__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt))) {
>>> +             if (likely(arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lg->lock)))) {
>>> +                     rwlock_acquire_read(&lg->lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>>> +                     return;
>>> +             }
>>> +             read_lock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     __this_cpu_inc(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_local_read_lock);
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> +     if (likely(!__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt))) {
>>> +             lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
>>> +             return;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     if (!__this_cpu_dec_return(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt))
>>> +             read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> +
>>> +     preempt_enable();
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock);
>>> +
>>
>> If I read the code above correctly, all you are doing is implementing a
>> recursive reader-side primitive (ie., allowing the reader to call these
>> functions recursively, without resulting in a self-deadlock).
>>
>> But the thing is, making the reader-side recursive is the least of our
>> problems! Our main challenge is to make the locking extremely flexible
>> and also safe-guard it against circular-locking-dependencies and deadlocks.
>> Please take a look at the changelog of patch 1 - it explains the situation
>> with an example.
>
>
> My lock fixes your requirements(I read patch 1-6 before I sent). In

s/fixes/fits/

> readsite, lglock 's lock is token via trylock, the lglock doesn't
> contribute to deadlocks, we can consider it doesn't exist when we find
> deadlock from it. And global fallback rwlock doesn't result to
> deadlocks because it is read-preference(you need to inc the
> fallback_reader_refcnt inside the cpu-hotplug write-side, I don't do
> it in generic lgrwlock)
>
>
> If lg_rwlock_local_read_lock() spins, which means
> lg_rwlock_local_read_lock() spins on fallback_rwlock, and which means
> lg_rwlock_global_write_lock() took the lgrwlock successfully and
> return, and which means lg_rwlock_local_read_lock() will stop spinning
> when the write side finished.
>
>
>>
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> +     lg_global_lock(&lgrw->lglock);
>>
>> This does a for-loop on all CPUs and takes their locks one-by-one. That's
>> exactly what we want to prevent, because that is the _source_ of all our
>> deadlock woes in this case. In the presence of perfect lock ordering
>> guarantees, this wouldn't have been a problem (that's why lglocks are
>> being used successfully elsewhere in the kernel). In the stop-machine()
>> removal case, the over-flexibility of preempt_disable() forces us to provide
>> an equally flexible locking alternative. Hence we can't use such per-cpu
>> locking schemes.
>>
>> You might note that, for exactly this reason, I haven't actually used any
>> per-cpu _locks_ in this synchronization scheme, though it is named as
>> "per-cpu rwlocks". The only per-cpu component here are the refcounts, and
>> we consciously avoid waiting/spinning on them (because then that would be
>> equivalent to having per-cpu locks, which are deadlock-prone). We use
>> global rwlocks to get the deadlock-safety that we need.
>>
>>> +     write_lock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_global_write_lock);
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> +     write_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> +     lg_global_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_global_write_unlock);
>>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
--
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