![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:20:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:34:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +> > +/*> > + * PREEMPT_RCU data structures.> > + */> > +> > +#define GP_STAGES 4> > +struct rcu_data {> > + spinlock_t lock; /* Protect rcu_data fields. */> > + long completed; /* Number of last completed batch. */
> > + int waitlistcount;> > + struct tasklet_struct rcu_tasklet;> > + struct rcu_head *nextlist;> > + struct rcu_head **nexttail;> > + struct rcu_head *waitlist[GP_STAGES];> > + struct rcu_head **waittail[GP_STAGES];> > + struct rcu_head *donelist;> > + struct rcu_head **donetail;> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE> > + struct rcupreempt_trace trace;> > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */> > +};> > +struct rcu_ctrlblk {> > + spinlock_t fliplock; /* Protect state-machine transitions. */
> > + long completed; /* Number of last completed batch. */
> > +};> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_data);> > +static struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_ctrlblk = {> > + .fliplock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,> > + .completed = 0,> > +};> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int [2], rcu_flipctr) = { 0, 0 };
> > +> > +/*> > + * States for rcu_try_flip() and friends.> > + */> > +> > +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" */
> > +};
> > +static enum rcu_try_flip_states rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_idle_state;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE
> > +static char *rcu_try_flip_state_names[] =
> > + { "idle", "waitack", "waitzero", "waitmb" };
> > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */> > [snip]> > > +/*> > + * If a global counter flip has occurred since the last time that we
> > + * advanced callbacks, advance them. Hardware interrupts must be
> > + * disabled when calling this function.> > + */> > +static void __rcu_advance_callbacks(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > +{> > + int cpu;> > + int i;> > + int wlc = 0;> > +> > + if (rdp->completed != rcu_ctrlblk.completed) {
> > + if (rdp->waitlist[GP_STAGES - 1] != NULL) {> > + *rdp->donetail = rdp->waitlist[GP_STAGES - 1];
> > + rdp->donetail = rdp->waittail[GP_STAGES - 1];
> > + RCU_TRACE_RDP(rcupreempt_trace_move2done, rdp);
> > + }> > + for (i = GP_STAGES - 2; i >= 0; i--) {> > + if (rdp->waitlist[i] != NULL) {> > + rdp->waitlist[i + 1] = rdp->waitlist[i];
> > + rdp->waittail[i + 1] = rdp->waittail[i];
> > + wlc++;> > + } else {> > + rdp->waitlist[i + 1] = NULL;> > + rdp->waittail[i + 1] => > + &rdp->waitlist[i + 1];> > + }> > + }> > + if (rdp->nextlist != NULL) {> > + rdp->waitlist[0] = rdp->nextlist;> > + rdp->waittail[0] = rdp->nexttail;> > + wlc++;> > + rdp->nextlist = NULL;> > + rdp->nexttail = &rdp->nextlist;> > + RCU_TRACE_RDP(rcupreempt_trace_move2wait, rdp);
> > + } else {> > + rdp->waitlist[0] = NULL;> > + rdp->waittail[0] = &rdp->waitlist[0];
> > + }> > + rdp->waitlistcount = wlc;> > + rdp->completed = rcu_ctrlblk.completed;> > + }> > +> > + /*> > + * Check to see if this CPU needs to report that it has seen
> > + * the most recent counter flip, thereby declaring that all
> > + * subsequent rcu_read_lock() invocations will respect this flip.
> > + */> > +> > + cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();> > + if (per_cpu(rcu_flip_flag, cpu) == rcu_flipped) {
> > + smp_mb(); /* Subsequent counter accesses must see new value */
> > + per_cpu(rcu_flip_flag, cpu) = rcu_flip_seen;> > + smp_mb(); /* Subsequent RCU read-side critical sections */
> > + /* seen -after- acknowledgement. */> > + }> > +}> > [snip]> > > +/*> > + * 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
> > + * on a large SMP, they might want to use a hierarchical organization of
> > + * the per-CPU-counter pairs.> > + */> > +static void rcu_try_flip(void)> > +{> > + unsigned long oldirq;> > +> > + RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_try_flip_1);> > + if (unlikely(!spin_trylock_irqsave(&rcu_ctrlblk.fliplock, oldirq))) {
> > + RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_try_flip_e1);> > + return;> > + }> > +> > + /*> > + * Take the next transition(s) through the RCU grace-period
> > + * flip-counter state machine.> > + */> > +> > + switch (rcu_try_flip_state) {> > + case rcu_try_flip_idle_state:> > + if (rcu_try_flip_idle())> > + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_waitack_state;
> > + break;> > + case rcu_try_flip_waitack_state:> > + if (rcu_try_flip_waitack())> > + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_waitzero_state;
> > + break;> > + case rcu_try_flip_waitzero_state:> > + if (rcu_try_flip_waitzero())> > + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_waitmb_state;
> > + break;> > + case rcu_try_flip_waitmb_state:> > + if (rcu_try_flip_waitmb())> > + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_idle_state;> > + }> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu_ctrlblk.fliplock, oldirq);
> > +}> > Paul,> > Looking further into this, I still think this is a bit of overkill. We
> go through 20 states from call_rcu to list->func().
> > On call_rcu we put our stuff on the next list. Before we move stuff from
> next to wait, we need to go through 4 states. So we have
> > next -> 4 states -> wait[0] -> 4 states -> wait[1] -> 4 states ->
> wait[2] -> 4 states -> wait[3] -> 4 states -> done.
>
> That's 20 states that we go through from the time we add our function to
> the list to the time it actually gets called. Do we really need the 4
> wait lists?
>
> Seems a bit overkill to me.
>
> What am I missing?
"Nothing kills like overkill!!!" ;-)
Seriously, I do expect to be able to squeeze this down over time, but
feel the need to be a bit on the cowardly side at the moment.
In any case, I will be looking at the scenarios more carefully. If
it turns out that GP_STAGES can indeed be cranked down a bit, well,
that is an easy change! I just fired off a POWER run with GP_STAGES
set to 3, will let you know how it goes.
Thanx, Paul
-
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: 2007-09-21 23:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||