From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: paulmck@us.ibm.com
Cc: dipankar@in.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:08:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1115755692.26548.15.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050510012444.GA3011@us.ibm.com>
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 18:24 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> 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.
> Thoughts?
>
How about having another boolean indicating the ability to flip the
selector boolean. This boolean would be set false on an actual flip and
cleared during a grace period. That way the flips cannot ever interfere
with one another such that the callbacks would be cleared prematurely.
--
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-10 20:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-10 1:24 [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress Paul E. McKenney
2005-05-10 10:55 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-05-10 14:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-05-11 18:14 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-05-12 1:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-05-10 20:08 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2005-05-10 20:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2005-05-10 20:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-05-10 20:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2005-05-10 22:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-05-12 8:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2005-05-12 14:30 ` 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=1115755692.26548.15.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox