From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
kernel-team@android.com,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/20] doc: rcu: Better clarify the rcu_segcblist ->len field
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:56:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181111195645.9205-7-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181111195619.GA6958@linux.ibm.com>
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
An important note under the rcu_segcblist description could use a more
detailed description. Especially explanation of the scenario where the
->head field may be temporarily NULL making it not wise to rely on it
to determine if callbacks are associated with the rcu_segcblist.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: <kernel-team@android.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
---
.../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html | 23 ++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
index 28b241074c86..3ed5f0182bc4 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
@@ -928,17 +928,24 @@ this <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt> structure, <i>not</i> the <tt>->head</tt>
pointer.
The reason for this is that all the ready-to-invoke callbacks
(that is, those in the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment) are extracted
-all at once at callback-invocation time.
+all at once at callback-invocation time (<tt>rcu_do_batch</tt>), due
+to which <tt>->head</tt> may be set to NULL if there are no not-done
+callbacks remaining in the <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt>.
If callback invocation must be postponed, for example, because a
high-priority process just woke up on this CPU, then the remaining
-callbacks are placed back on the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment.
-Either way, the <tt>->len</tt> and <tt>->len_lazy</tt> counts
-are adjusted after the corresponding callbacks have been invoked, and so
-again it is the <tt>->len</tt> count that accurately reflects whether
-or not there are callbacks associated with this <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt>
-structure.
+callbacks are placed back on the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment and
+<tt>->head</tt> once again points to the start of the segment.
+In short, the head field can briefly be <tt>NULL</tt> even though the
+CPU has callbacks present the entire time.
+Therefore, it is not appropriate to test the <tt>->head</tt> pointer
+for <tt>NULL</tt>.
+
+<p>In contrast, the <tt>->len</tt> and <tt>->len_lazy</tt> counts
+are adjusted only after the corresponding callbacks have been invoked.
+This means that the <tt>->len</tt> count is zero only if
+the <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt> structure really is devoid of callbacks.
Of course, off-CPU sampling of the <tt>->len</tt> count requires
-the use of appropriate synchronization, for example, memory barriers.
+careful use of appropriate synchronization, for example, memory barriers.
This synchronization can be a bit subtle, particularly in the case
of <tt>rcu_barrier()</tt>.
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-11 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-11 19:56 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/20] Documentation updates for v4.21/v5.0 Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/20] doc: Set down forward-progress requirements Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] doc: Clarify RCU data-structure comment about rcu_tree fanout Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/20] doc: Remove rcu_preempt_state reference in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/20] doc: rcu: Update information about resched_cpu Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/20] doc: rcu: Remove rcu_dynticks from Data-Structures Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/20] doc: rcu: Update Data-Structures for RCU flavor consolidation Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/20] doc: rcu: Update description of gp_seq fields in rcu_data Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/20] doc: Document rcutorture forward-progress test kernel parameters Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/20] doc: rcu: Update core and full API in whatisRCU Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] doc: rcu: Add more rationale for using rcu_read_lock_sched in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete suggestion from checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete checklist item about synchronize_rcu usage Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/20] doc: rcu: Encourage use of rcu_barrier in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/20] doc: Make reader aware of rcu_dereference_protected Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/20] doc: Remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/20] doc: Make listing in RCU perf/scale requirements use rcu_assign_pointer() Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/20] doc: RCU scheduler spinlock rcu_read_unlock() restriction remains Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/20] doc: Correct parameter in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/20] doc: Fix "struction" typo in RCU memory-ordering documentation 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=20181111195645.9205-7-paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.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.