lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 3/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 05:46:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:40:03 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:34:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>
> > Can you have a pointer somewhere that explains these states. And not a
> > "it's in this paper or directory". Either have a short discription here,
> > or specify where exactly to find the information (perhaps a
> > Documentation/RCU/preemptible_states.txt?).
> >
> > Trying to understand these states has caused me the most agony in
> > reviewing these patches.
> >
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +enum rcu_try_flip_states {
> > > + rcu_try_flip_idle_state, /* "I" */
> > > + rcu_try_flip_waitack_state, /* "A" */
> > > + rcu_try_flip_waitzero_state, /* "Z" */
> > > + rcu_try_flip_waitmb_state /* "M" */
> > > +};
>
> I thought the 4 flip states corresponded to the 4 GP stages, but now
> you confused me. It seems to indeed progress one stage for every 4 flip
> states.

I'm still confused ;-)

>
> Hmm, now I have to puzzle how these 4 stages are required by the lock
> and unlock magic.
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Return the number of RCU batches processed thus far. Useful for debug
> > > + * and statistics. The _bh variant is identical to straight RCU.
> > > + */
> >
> > If they are identical, then why the separation?
>
> I guess a smaller RCU domain makes for quicker grace periods.

No, I mean that both the rcu_batches_completed and
rcu_batches_completed_bh are identical. Perhaps we can just put in a

#define rcu_batches_completed_bh rcu_batches_completed

in rcupreempt.h. In rcuclassic, they are different. But no need to have
two identical functions in the preempt version. A macro should do.

>
> > > +void __rcu_read_lock(void)
> > > +{
> > > + int idx;
> > > + struct task_struct *me = current;
> >
> > Nitpick, but other places in the kernel usually use "t" or "p" as a
> > variable to assign current to. It's just that "me" thows me off a
> > little while reviewing this. But this is just a nitpick, so do as you
> > will.
>
> struct task_struct *curr = current;
>
> is also not uncommon.

True, but the "me" confused me. Since that task struct is not me ;-)

>
> > > + int nesting;
> > > +
> > > + nesting = ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(me->rcu_read_lock_nesting);
> > > + if (nesting != 0) {
> > > +
> > > + /* An earlier rcu_read_lock() covers us, just count it. */
> > > +
> > > + me->rcu_read_lock_nesting = nesting + 1;
> > > +
> > > + } else {
> > > + unsigned long oldirq;
> >
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Disable local interrupts to prevent the grace-period
> > > + * detection state machine from seeing us half-done.
> > > + * NMIs can still occur, of course, and might themselves
> > > + * contain rcu_read_lock().
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + local_irq_save(oldirq);
> >
> > Isn't the GP detection done via a tasklet/softirq. So wouldn't a
> > local_bh_disable be sufficient here? You already cover NMIs, which would
> > also handle normal interrupts.
>
> This is also my understanding, but I think this disable is an
> 'optimization' in that it avoids the regular IRQs from jumping through
> these hoops outlined below.

But isn't disabling irqs slower than doing a local_bh_disable? So the
majority of times (where irqs will not happen) we have this overhead.

>
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Outermost nesting of rcu_read_lock(), so increment
> > > + * the current counter for the current CPU. Use volatile
> > > + * casts to prevent the compiler from reordering.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + idx = ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(rcu_ctrlblk.completed) & 0x1;
> > > + smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* @@@@ might be unneeded */
> > > + ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(__get_cpu_var(rcu_flipctr)[idx])++;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Now that the per-CPU counter has been incremented, we
> > > + * are protected from races with rcu_read_lock() invoked
> > > + * from NMI handlers on this CPU. We can therefore safely
> > > + * increment the nesting counter, relieving further NMIs
> > > + * of the need to increment the per-CPU counter.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(me->rcu_read_lock_nesting) = nesting + 1;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Now that we have preventing any NMIs from storing
> > > + * to the ->rcu_flipctr_idx, we can safely use it to
> > > + * remember which counter to decrement in the matching
> > > + * rcu_read_unlock().
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + ORDERED_WRT_IRQ(me->rcu_flipctr_idx) = idx;
> > > + local_irq_restore(oldirq);
> > > + }
> > > +}
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Attempt a single flip of the counters. Remember, a single flip does
> > > + * -not- constitute a grace period. Instead, the interval between
> > > + * at least three consecutive flips is a grace period.
> > > + *
> > > + * If anyone is nuts enough to run this CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU implementation
> >
> > Oh, come now! It's not "nuts" to use this ;-)
> >
> > > + * on a large SMP, they might want to use a hierarchical organization of
> > > + * the per-CPU-counter pairs.
> > > + */
>
> Its the large SMP case that's nuts, and on that I have to agree with
> Paul, its not really large SMP friendly.

Hmm, that could be true. But on large SMP systems, you usually have a
large amounts of memory, so hopefully a really long synchronize_rcu
would not be a problem.

-- Steve

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-22 00:33    [W:0.116 / U:4.756 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site