Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 2 May 2006 13:58:21 -0700 | | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] dynamic configuration for remote rcu callback processing |
| |
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:39:58PM -0500, Dimitri Sivanich wrote: > This patch add the ability to dynamically configure processors for remote > rcu callback processing. It applies on top of PATCH 1/2.
OK... So the reason some of the races in 1/2 were not a problem is that that patch did not allow any changes in the group of CPUs that have their RCU callbacks processed by other CPUs. However, I don't see how the patch below covers some of them. So I just called them out in the wrong patch. ;-)
Comments below.
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> > > Index: linux/include/linux/rcupdate.h > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2006-04-03 15:26:38.743863052 -0500 > +++ linux/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2006-04-03 15:26:43.863355795 -0500 > @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ struct rcu_data { > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > long last_rs_qlen; /* qlen during the last resched */ > spinlock_t rmlock; /* for use with remote callback */ > + short batch_stat; /* indicate processing being done */ > #endif > }; > > Index: linux/kernel/rcupdate.c > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/kernel/rcupdate.c 2006-04-03 15:26:38.743863052 -0500 > +++ linux/kernel/rcupdate.c 2006-04-03 15:26:43.867355399 -0500 > @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ static int rcu_next_remotercu(void) > /* > * Configure a cpu for remote rcu callback processing. > */ > -static int rcu_set_remote_rcu(int cpu) { > +int rcu_set_remote_rcu(int cpu) { > unsigned long flags; > > if (cpu < NR_CPUS) { > @@ -206,11 +206,12 @@ static int rcu_set_remote_rcu(int cpu) { > } else > return 1; > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_set_remote_rcu); > > /* > * Configure a cpu for standard rcu callback processing. > */ > -static void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu) { > +void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu) { > unsigned long flags; > > if (cpu < NR_CPUS) { > @@ -219,6 +220,7 @@ static void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpu_remotercu_lock, flags); > } > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_clear_remote_rcu); > > /* > * Configure a set of cpus at boot time for remote rcu callback > @@ -238,7 +240,6 @@ static int __init rcu_remotercu_cpu_setu > > __setup ("remotercu=", rcu_remotercu_cpu_setup); > #else > -static int rcu_callbacks_processed_remotely(int cpu) { return 0; } > static int rcu_process_remote(int cpu) { return 0; } > static void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu) {} > #endif > @@ -650,8 +651,16 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(stru > } > > rcu_check_quiescent_state(rcp, rdp); > - if (!rcu_callbacks_processed_remotely(cpu) && rdp->donelist) > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > + if (rdp->donelist && !rcu_callbacks_processed_remotely(cpu) && > + (cmpxchg(&rdp->batch_stat, 0, 1)) == 0) {
I have to ask... Why can't we just use a spinlock here? This code is effectively using batch_stat as a spinlock, right?
> rcu_do_batch(rdp); > + rdp->batch_stat = 0; > + } > +#else > + if (rdp->donelist) > + rcu_do_batch(rdp); > +#endif > } > > static void rcu_process_callbacks(unsigned long unused) > @@ -692,15 +701,25 @@ static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks > */ > rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu); > if (spin_trylock_irq(&rdp->rmlock)) { > - if ((list=xchg(&rdp->donelist, NULL))!=NULL) > - rdp->donetail = &rdp->donelist; > + /* > + * batch_stat ensures cpu isn't still running rcu_do_batch. > + * This can happen if we've just configured on the fly. > + */ > + if (cmpxchg(&rdp->batch_stat, 0, 2) == 0) {
Again, why not just a spinlock? The value 1 vs. 2 does not seem to be used.
> + list=xchg(&rdp->donelist, NULL); > + if (list != NULL) > + rdp->donetail = &rdp->donelist; > + } > spin_unlock_irq(&rdp->rmlock); > } > > rdp_bh = &per_cpu(rcu_bh_data, cpu); > if (spin_trylock_irq(&rdp_bh->rmlock)) { > - if ((list_bh=xchg(&rdp_bh->donelist, NULL))!=NULL) > - rdp_bh->donetail = &rdp_bh->donelist; > + if (cmpxchg(&rdp_bh->batch_stat, 0, 2) == 0) { > + list_bh=xchg(&rdp_bh->donelist, NULL); > + if (list_bh != NULL) > + rdp_bh->donetail = &rdp_bh->donelist; > + } > spin_unlock_irq(&rdp_bh->rmlock); > } > > @@ -717,6 +736,8 @@ static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks > old = rdp->qlen; > new = old - cnt; > } while (cmpxchg(&rdp->qlen, old, new)!=old); > + if (rdp->batch_stat == 2) > + rdp->batch_stat = 0; > > cnt=0; > while (list_bh) { > @@ -729,6 +750,8 @@ static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks > old = rdp_bh->qlen; > new = old - cnt; > } while (cmpxchg(&rdp_bh->qlen, old, new)!=old); > + if (rdp_bh->batch_stat == 2) > + rdp_bh->batch_stat = 0; > } > #else > static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks(unsigned long unused) {} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |