Message-Id: <20190311221000.GO13351@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:10:00 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        neeraju@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table
 throughout insertion.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 08:50:05AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 07:44:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:04:48PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 30 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:45:45AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> > >> On Fri, Jul 27 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:18:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:04:37AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Jul 25 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > >> >> > >> 
> >> > >> >> > >> Looks good ... except ... naming is hard.
> >> > >> >> > >> 
> >> > >> >> > >>  is_after_call_rcu_init()  asserts where in the lifecycle we are,
> >> > >> >> > >>  is_after_call_rcu() tests where in the lifecycle we are.
> >> > >> >> > >> 
> >> > >> >> > >>  The names are similar but the purpose is quite different.
> >> > >> >> > >>  Maybe s/is_after_call_rcu_init/call_rcu_init/ ??
> >> > >> >> > >
> >> > >> >> > > How about rcu_head_init() and rcu_head_after_call_rcu()?
> >> > >> >> 
> >> > >> >> Very well, I will pull this change in on my next rebase.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Like this?
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> Hard to say - unwinding white-space damage in my head is too challenging
> >> > >> when newlines have been deleted :-(
> >> > >
> >> > > What???  Don't you like block-structured code?
> >> > >
> >> > > All kidding aside, how about the following more conventionally formatted
> >> > > version?
> >> > 
> >> > Wow - it's like I just got new glasses!
> >> > Yes - nice an clear and now flaws to be found.  Thanks a lot.
> >> 
> >> Now that flaws are to be found, please feel free to report them.  ;-)
> >
> > Hello, Neil,
> >
> > Any plans to use these functions?  There are still no upstream uses.
> > On the other hand, if they proved unuseful, I will remove them.  If I
> > don't hear otherwise from you, I will pull them in v5.2.
> 
> Hi Paul,
>  yes, I do still have plans for them.  I've got quite a few things I
>  want to add to rhashtables including this, but got stalled late last
>  year and I haven't managed to get back to it.
>  Thanks for your prompting - I'll make an effort to post some patches
>  soon, particularly the one that makes use of this new functionality.

OK, I won't remove it.  Not just yet, anyway.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
> 
> 
> >
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> >
> >> > NeilBrown
> >> > 
> >> > >
> >> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> >> > >
> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> > > commit e3408141ed7d702995b2fdc94703af88aadd226b
> >> > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> > > Date:   Tue Jul 24 15:28:09 2018 -0700
> >> > >
> >> > >     rcu: Provide functions for determining if call_rcu() has been invoked
> >> > >     
> >> > >     This commit adds rcu_head_init() and rcu_head_after_call_rcu() functions
> >> > >     to help RCU users detect when another CPU has passed the specified
> >> > >     rcu_head structure and function to call_rcu().  The rcu_head_init()
> >> > >     should be invoked before making the structure visible to RCU readers,
> >> > >     and then the rcu_head_after_call_rcu() may be invoked from within
> >> > >     an RCU read-side critical section on an rcu_head structure that
> >> > >     was obtained during a traversal of the data structure in question.
> >> > >     The rcu_head_after_call_rcu() function will return true if the rcu_head
> >> > >     structure has already been passed (with the specified function) to
> >> > >     call_rcu(), otherwise it will return false.
> >> > >     
> >> > >     If rcu_head_init() has not been invoked on the rcu_head structure
> >> > >     or if the rcu_head (AKA callback) has already been invoked, then
> >> > >     rcu_head_after_call_rcu() will do WARN_ON_ONCE().
> >> > >     
> >> > >     Reported-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
> >> > >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> > >     [ paulmck: Apply neilb naming feedback. ]
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> >> > > index e4f821165d0b..4db8bcacc51a 100644
> >> > > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> >> > > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> >> > > @@ -857,6 +857,46 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void)
> >> > >  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE */
> >> > >  
> >> > >  
> >> > > +/* Has the specified rcu_head structure been handed to call_rcu()? */
> >> > > +
> >> > > +/*
> >> > > + * rcu_head_init - Initialize rcu_head for rcu_head_after_call_rcu()
> >> > > + * @rhp: The rcu_head structure to initialize.
> >> > > + *
> >> > > + * If you intend to invoke rcu_head_after_call_rcu() to test whether a
> >> > > + * given rcu_head structure has already been passed to call_rcu(), then
> >> > > + * you must also invoke this rcu_head_init() function on it just after
> >> > > + * allocating that structure.  Calls to this function must not race with
> >> > > + * calls to call_rcu(), rcu_head_after_call_rcu(), or callback invocation.
> >> > > + */
> >> > > +static inline void rcu_head_init(struct rcu_head *rhp)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > +	rhp->func = (rcu_callback_t)~0L;
> >> > > +}
> >> > > +
> >> > > +/*
> >> > > + * rcu_head_after_call_rcu - Has this rcu_head been passed to call_rcu()?
> >> > > + * @rhp: The rcu_head structure to test.
> >> > > + * @func: The function passed to call_rcu() along with @rhp.
> >> > > + *
> >> > > + * Returns @true if the @rhp has been passed to call_rcu() with @func,
> >> > > + * and @false otherwise.  Emits a warning in any other case, including
> >> > > + * the case where @rhp has already been invoked after a grace period.
> >> > > + * Calls to this function must not race with callback invocation.  One way
> >> > > + * to avoid such races is to enclose the call to rcu_head_after_call_rcu()
> >> > > + * in an RCU read-side critical section that includes a read-side fetch
> >> > > + * of the pointer to the structure containing @rhp.
> >> > > + */
> >> > > +static inline bool
> >> > > +rcu_head_after_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t f)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > +	if (READ_ONCE(rhp->func) == f)
> >> > > +		return true;
> >> > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(rhp->func) != (rcu_callback_t)~0L);
> >> > > +	return false;
> >> > > +}
> >> > > +
> >> > > +
> >> > >  /* Transitional pre-consolidation compatibility definitions. */
> >> > >  
> >> > >  static inline void synchronize_rcu_bh(void)
> >> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
> >> > > index 5dec94509a7e..4c56c1d98fb3 100644
> >> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
> >> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
> >> > > @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ void kfree(const void *);
> >> > >   */
> >> > >  static inline bool __rcu_reclaim(const char *rn, struct rcu_head *head)
> >> > >  {
> >> > > +	rcu_callback_t f;
> >> > >  	unsigned long offset = (unsigned long)head->func;
> >> > >  
> >> > >  	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_callback_map);
> >> > > @@ -234,7 +235,9 @@ static inline bool __rcu_reclaim(const char *rn, struct rcu_head *head)
> >> > >  		return true;
> >> > >  	} else {
> >> > >  		RCU_TRACE(trace_rcu_invoke_callback(rn, head);)
> >> > > -		head->func(head);
> >> > > +		f = head->func;
> >> > > +		WRITE_ONCE(head->func, (rcu_callback_t)0L);
> >> > > +		f(head);
> >> > >  		rcu_lock_release(&rcu_callback_map);
> >> > >  		return false;
> >> > >  	}
> >> 
> >> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists