From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 08/18] rcu: remove leg of force_quiescent_state() switch statement
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:02:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1260918161349-git-send-email-> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091215230213.GA9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Proposed for 2.6.34, not for inclusion.
The comparisons of rsp->gpnum nad rsp->completed in rcu_process_dyntick()
and force_quiescent_state() can be replaced by the much more clear
rcu_gp_in_progress() predicate function. After doing this, it becomes
clear that the RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED leg of the force_quiescent_state()
function's switch statement is almost completely a no-op. A small change
to the RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK leg renders it a complete no-op, after which it
can be removed. Doing so also eliminates the forcenow local variable
from force_quiescent_state().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcutree.c | 22 +++++-----------------
kernel/rcutree.h | 5 ++---
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index e497119..6268f37 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -1144,6 +1144,7 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
/*
* Scan the leaf rcu_node structures, processing dyntick state for any that
* have not yet encountered a quiescent state, using the function specified.
+ * The caller must have suppressed start of new grace periods.
*/
static void rcu_process_dyntick(struct rcu_state *rsp,
int (*f)(struct rcu_data *))
@@ -1157,7 +1158,7 @@ static void rcu_process_dyntick(struct rcu_state *rsp,
rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rsp, rnp) {
mask = 0;
spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
- if (rnp->completed != rsp->gpnum - 1) {
+ if (!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) {
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
return;
}
@@ -1171,7 +1172,7 @@ static void rcu_process_dyntick(struct rcu_state *rsp,
if ((rnp->qsmask & bit) != 0 && f(rsp->rda[cpu]))
mask |= bit;
}
- if (mask != 0 && rnp->completed == rsp->gpnum - 1) {
+ if (mask != 0 && rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) {
/* rcu_report_qs_rnp() releases rnp->lock. */
rcu_report_qs_rnp(mask, rsp, rnp, flags);
@@ -1189,7 +1190,6 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
{
unsigned long flags;
struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
- u8 forcenow;
if (!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp))
return; /* No grace period in progress, nothing to force. */
@@ -1224,21 +1224,9 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
/* Record dyntick-idle state. */
rcu_process_dyntick(rsp, dyntick_save_progress_counter);
spin_lock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs already disabled */
- if (!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp))
- break;
- /* fall into next case. */
-
- case RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED:
-
- /* Update state, record completion counter. */
- forcenow = 0;
- if (rsp->gpnum - 1 == rsp->completed) {
- forcenow = rsp->signaled == RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED;
+ if (rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp))
rsp->signaled = RCU_FORCE_QS;
- }
- if (!forcenow)
- break;
- /* fall into next case. */
+ break;
case RCU_FORCE_QS:
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.h b/kernel/rcutree.h
index 5348561..edb6fae 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.h
@@ -237,12 +237,11 @@ struct rcu_data {
#define RCU_GP_IDLE 0 /* No grace period in progress. */
#define RCU_GP_INIT 1 /* Grace period being initialized. */
#define RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK 2 /* Need to scan dyntick state. */
-#define RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED 3 /* Need to save rsp->completed. */
-#define RCU_FORCE_QS 4 /* Need to force quiescent state. */
+#define RCU_FORCE_QS 3 /* Need to force quiescent state. */
#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
#define RCU_SIGNAL_INIT RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK
#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ */
-#define RCU_SIGNAL_INIT RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED
+#define RCU_SIGNAL_INIT RCU_FORCE_QS
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ */
#define RCU_JIFFIES_TILL_FORCE_QS 3 /* for rsp->jiffies_force_qs */
--
1.5.2.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-15 23:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-15 23:02 [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/18] rcu: simplify race conditions, add checking Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 01/18] rcu: adjust force_quiescent_state() locking, step 1 Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: adjust force_quiescent_state() locking, step 2 Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 03/18] rcu: prohibit starting new grace periods while forcing quiescent states Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 04/18] rcu: eliminate local variable signaled from force_quiescent_state() Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/18] rcu: eliminate local variable lastcomp " Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 06/18] rcu: eliminate second argument of rcu_process_dyntick() Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 07/18] rcu: eliminate rcu_process_dyntick() return value Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/18] rcu: remove redundant grace-period check Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 10/18] rcu: make force_quiescent_state() start grace period if needed Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/18] rcu: add force_quiescent_state() testing to rcutorture Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 12/18] rcu: make MAINTAINERS file match new RCU reality Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 0:53 ` Josh Triplett
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 13/18] rcu: add debug check for too many rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/18] rcu: lockdep check for exiting to user space as RCU reader Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 10:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 15:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 15/18] rcu: give different levels of the rcu_node hierarchy distinct lockdep names Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 0:59 ` Josh Triplett
2009-12-16 1:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 10:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 15:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 16/18] rcu: make lockdep aware of SRCU read-side critical sections Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/18] rcu: Provide different lockdep classes for each flavor of RCU Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 18/18] rcu: add primitives to check for RCU read-side critical sections Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 1:04 ` Josh Triplett
2009-12-16 2:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 15:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1260918161349-git-send-email- \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.