All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] rcu_sync: Cleanup the CONFIG_PROVE_RCU checks
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:05:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150911170526.GU4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150911155901.GA27246@redhat.com>

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:59:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/10, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:59:42PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 09/09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is obsolete, but its replacement is the same patch.
> > >
> > > fbe3b97183f84155d81e506b1aa7d2ce986f7a36 in linux-rcu.git#experimental
> > > I guess?
> > >
> > > > Oleg, Davidlohr, am I missing something on how percpu_rwsem or
> > > > locktorture work?
> > >
> > > No, I think the patch is fine. Thanks for doing this! I was going to
> > > send something like this change too. And in fact I am still thinking
> > > about another test which plays with rcu_sync only, but probably we
> > > need some cleanups first (and we need them anyway). I'll try to do
> > > this a bit later.
> >
> > I would welcome an rcu_sync-specific torture patch!
> 
> I want it much more than you ;) I have already warned you, I'll send
> more rcu_sync patches. The current code is actually a very early draft
> which was written during the discussion with Peter a long ago. I sent
> it unchanged because a) it was already reviewed and b) I tested it a
> bit in the past.
> 
> We can greatly simplify this code and at the same time make it more
> useful. Actually I already have the patches. The 1st one removes
> rcu_sync->cb_state and gp_ops->sync(). This makes the state machine
> almost self-obvious and allows other improvements. See the resulting
> (pseudo) code at the end.
> 
> But again, I'll try very much to write the test before I send the patch.

That sounds very good!  ;-)

> Until then, let me send this trivial cleanup. The CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> code looks trivial but imo really annoying. And it is not complete,
> so lets document this at least. Plus rcu_lockdep_assert() looks more
> consistent.
> 
> 
> > > > +void torture_percpu_rwsem_init(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	BUG_ON(percpu_init_rwsem(&pcpu_rwsem));
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Aha, we don't really need this... I mean we can use the static initialiser
> > > which can also be used by uprobes and cgroups. I'll try to send the patch
> > > tomorrow.
> >
> > Very good, please do!
> 
> Hmm. I am lier. I won't send this patch at least today.
> 
> The change I had in mind is very simple,
> 
> 	#define DECLARE_PERCPU_RWSEM(sem)				\
> 		static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, sem##_counters);	\
> 		struct percpu_rw_semaphore sem = {			\
> 			.fast_read_ctr = &sem##_counters,		\
> 			...						\
> 		}
> 			
> and yes, uprobes and cgroups can use it.
> 
> But somehow I missed that we can't use it to define a _static_ sem,
> 
> 	static DECLARE_PERCPU_RWSEM(sem);
> 
> obviously won't work. And damn, I am shy to admit that I spent several
> hours trying to invent something but failed. Perhaps we can add 2 helpers,
> DECLARE_PERCPU_RWSEM_GLOBAL() and DECLARE_PERCPU_RWSEM_STATIC().

That is indeed what we do for SRCU for the same reason, DEFINE_SRCU()
and DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(), but with a common __DEFINE_SRCU() doing the
actual work.

							Thanx, Paul

> Oleg.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> static const struct {
> 	void (*call)(struct rcu_head *, void (*)(struct rcu_head *));
> 	void (*wait)(void);	// TODO: remove this
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> 	int  (*held)(void);
> #endif
> } gp_ops[] = {
> 	...
> };
> 
> // COMMENT to explain these states
> enum { GP_IDLE = 0, GP_ENTER, GP_PASSED, GP_EXIT, GP_REPLAY };
> 
> #define	rss_lock	gp_wait.lock
> 
> // !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!
> // XXX code must be removed when we split rcu_sync_enter() into start + wait
> // !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> static void rcu_sync_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> {
> 	struct rcu_sync *rsp = container_of(rcu, struct rcu_sync, cb_head);
> 	unsigned long flags;
> 
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state == GP_IDLE);
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state == GP_PASSED);
> 
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(&rsp->rss_lock, flags);
> 	if (rsp->gp_count) {
> 		/*
> 		 * COMMENT.
> 		 */
> 		rsp->gp_state = GP_PASSED;
> 		wake_up_locked(&rsp->gp_wait);
> 	} else if (rsp->gp_state == GP_REPLAY) {
> 		/*
> 		 * A new rcu_sync_exit() has happened; requeue the callback
> 		 * to catch a later GP.
> 		 */
> 		rsp->gp_state = GP_EXIT;
> 		gp_ops[rsp->gp_type].call(&rsp->cb_head, rcu_sync_func);
> 	} else {
> 		/*
> 		 * We're at least a GP after rcu_sync_exit(); eveybody will now
> 		 * have observed the write side critical section. Let 'em rip!.
> 		 */
> 		BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state == GP_ENTER);	// XXX
> 		rsp->gp_state = GP_IDLE;
> 	}
> 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rsp->rss_lock, flags);
> }
> 
> static void rcu_sync_call(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
> {
> 	// TODO:
> 	// This is called by might_sleep() code outside of ->rss_lock,
> 	// we can avoid ->call() in some cases (say rcu_blocking_is_gp())
> 	gp_ops[rsp->gp_type].call(&rsp->cb_head, rcu_sync_func);
> }
> 
> void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
> {
> 	int gp_count, gp_state;
> 
> 	spin_lock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
> 	gp_count = rsp->gp_count++;
> 	gp_state = rsp->gp_state;
> 	if (gp_state == GP_IDLE)
> 		rsp->gp_state = GP_ENTER;
> 	spin_unlock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
> 
> 	BUG_ON(gp_count != 0 && gp_state == GP_IDLE);
> 	BUG_ON(gp_count == 0 && gp_state == GP_PASSED);
> 	BUG_ON(gp_count == 0 && gp_state == GP_ENTER); // XXX
> 
> 	if (gp_state == GP_IDLE)
> 		rcu_sync_call(rsp);
> 
> 	wait_event(rsp->gp_wait, rsp->gp_state != GP_ENTER);
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state < GP_PASSED);
> }
> 
> void rcu_sync_exit(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
> {
> 	bool need_call;
> 
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state == GP_IDLE);
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state == GP_ENTER);	// XXX
> 
> 	spin_lock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
> 	if (!--rsp->gp_count) {
> 		if (rsp->gp_state == GP_PASSED) {
> 			need_call = true;
> 			rsp->gp_state = GP_EXIT;
> 		} else if (rsp->gp_state == GP_EXIT) {
> 			rsp->gp_state = GP_REPLAY;
> 		}
> 	}
> 	spin_unlock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
> 
> 	// Comment to explain why we do not care if another enter()
> 	// and perhaps even exit() comes after spin_unlock().
> 	if (need_call)
> 		rcu_sync_call(rsp);
> }
> 
> void rcu_sync_dtor(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
> {
> 	int gp_state;
> 
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_count);
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state == GP_ENTER);	// XXX
> 	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state == GP_PASSED);
> 
> 	spin_lock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
> 	if (rsp->gp_state == GP_REPLAY)
> 		rsp->gp_state = GP_EXIT;
> 	gp_state = rsp->gp_state;
> 	spin_unlock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
> 
> 	// TODO: add another wake_up_locked() into rcu_sync_func(),
> 	// use wait_event + spin_lock_wait, remove gp_ops->wait().
> 
> 	if (gp_state != GP_IDLE) {
> 		gp_ops[rsp->gp_type].wait();
> 		BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state != GP_IDLE);
> 	}
> }
> 


      parent reply	other threads:[~2015-09-11 17:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-11 15:59 [PATCH 0/1] rcu_sync: Cleanup the CONFIG_PROVE_RCU checks Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-11 15:59 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-11 21:40   ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-11 17:05 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]

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=20150911170526.GU4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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.