[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject[RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress

Making some progress on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT-compatible RCU. Am exploring
two approaches, the lock-based approach discussed earlier and a
counter-flip approach, with the latter very likely being the method
of choice. The reason for working the former is to get myself up to
speed on details of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT with something relatively simple.

I am basing my work off of:

since it works well on a four-CPU x86 system. I will port forward when
I have something worth considering for inclusion. To reiterate, the
patches referenced below are playtoys, for experimental and educational
use only.

Lock-Based Approach

1. Trivial working patch:

This one uses a single rwlock and a single global callback
list. This of course means that only one task may be in
an RCU read-side critical section at a time. Even so,
I had to split synchronize_kernel() into synchronize_rcu()
and synchronize_sched() -- I get infrequent hangs otherwise.
The implementation of synchronize_sched() is probably not what
it eventually needs to be, since it simply forces each CPU to
context switch, whether voluntary or preemption. Will be looking
into this later on.

2. Slightly less trivial working patch:

This one uses a per-CPU rwlock, but keeps the single global
callback list. It is otherwise identical to #1.

Next step is to go to per-CPU callback lists. If I was taking this
approach seriously, I would also experiment with multiple RCU read-side
locks per CPU, but I don't believe I would learn anything from that

The reason that I am not taking this approach seriously is that it
can impose high latencies on RCU read-side critical sections, as
discussed earlier on LKML. It also has high rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock() overhead.

Counter-Based Approach

The current implementation in Ingo's CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT patch uses a
counter-based approach, which seems to work, but which can result in
indefinite-duration grace periods. The following are very hazy thoughts
on how to get the benefits of this approach, but with short grace periods.

1. The basic trick is to maintain a pair of counters per CPU.
There would also be a global boolean variable that would select
one or the other of each pair. The rcu_read_lock() primitive
would then increment the counter indicated by the boolean
corresponding to the CPU that it is currently running on.
It would also keep a pointer to that particular counter in
the task structure. The rcu_read_unlock() primitive would
decrement this counter. (And, yes, you would also have a
counter in the task structure so that only the outermost of
a set of nested rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs would
actually increment/decrement the per-CPU counter pairs.)

To force a grace period, one would invert the value of the
global boolean variable. Once all the counters indicated
by the old value of the global boolean variable hit zero,
the corresponding set of RCU callbacks can be safely invoked.

The big problem with this approach is that a pair of inversions
of the global boolean variable could be spaced arbitrarily
closely, especially when you consider that the read side code
can be preempted. This could cause RCU callbacks to be invoked
prematurely, which could greatly reduce the life expectancy
of your kernel.

2. #1 above, but use a seqlock to guard the counter selection in
rcu_read_lock(). One potential disadvantage of this approach
is that an extremely unlucky instance of rcu_read_lock() might
be indefinitely delayed by a series of counter flips. I am
concerned that this might actually happen under low-memory
conditions. Also requires memory barriers on the read side,
which we might be stuck with, but still hope to be able to
get rid of. And the per-CPU counter manipulation must use
atomic instructions.

3. #1 above, but use per-CPU locks to guard the counter selection.
I don't like this any better than #2, worse, in fact, since it
requires expensive atomic instructions as well.

4. The Australian National Zoo alternative: keep the counter pairs
in the task structure rather than keeping them per-CPU. This
eliminates the need for atomic operations in rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock(), but makes the update side do horribly expensive
task-list trawls. [So named because I thought of it while trying
to jog to the Australian National Zoo. I took a wrong turn, and
ended up running up a valley on the other side of Black Mountain,
so never did make it to the zoo. On the other hand, I did encounter
a herd of wild kangaroo and also thought up this approach, so I
think I came out OK on the deal.]

5. The National Train notion: #4 above, but keep a separate list
containing only preempted tasks that had non-zero RCU counters
at the time of preemption. In the (presumably) common case of
no preemption in RCU read-side critical sections, both the
read-side and the update-side overhead is low. But... There
is a problem with detecting tasks that are in long-running
RCU read-side critical sections that don't get preempted.
[So named because I thought of it on the UK National Train
somewhere between London and Winchester.]

6. Oak Hills option: keep per-CPU counters, which require atomic
increment/decrement in the general case, but use a fastpath
that (with preemption disabled) checks to see if the value of
the counter is zero (for rcu_read_lock()) or one (for
rcu_read_unlock()), and, if so, does the counter manipulation
non-atomically. Use atomics on the (presumably infrequent)
slow path, which is taken if someone gets preempted in the middle
of an RCU read-side critical section.

Handle races between rcu_read_lock() and counter flips by
having rcu_read_lock() increment the counter, then checking
to see if it incremented the correct counter of the pair.
If it did not (i.e., the flip just happened), increment
the other counter of the pair as well, recording the fact that
both were incremented in the task struct. The rcu_read_unlock()
primitive then decrements any/all counters that rcu_read_lock()

Memory barriers are still needed in the non-atomic increment
and decrement cases. However, it may be possible to leverage
naturally occuring memory barriers (see for example Joe Seigh's
recent LKML posting on RCU+SMR:
If the naturally occuring memory barriers aren't happening fast
enough (e.g., low memory situation), a round of IPIs should
suffice, for example, smp_call_function() to a function that
advances the callbacks on each CPU.

If this one pans out, the common-case overhead of rcu_read_lock()
and rcu_read_unlock() would not be much more expensive than the
current CONFIG_PREEMPT implementations.

There are probably better approaches, but that is what I have thus far.


Thanx, Paul
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-10 03:29    [W:0.120 / U:3.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site