From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932980AbZLOXMh (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:12:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934129AbZLOXMT (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:12:19 -0500 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:53803 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934206AbZLOXCt (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:02:49 -0500 From: "Paul E. McKenney" 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" Subject: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 01/18] rcu: adjust force_quiescent_state() locking, step 1 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:02:24 -0800 Message-Id: <1260918161990-git-send-email-> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.5.2.5 In-Reply-To: <20091215230213.GA9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20091215230213.GA9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Not yet for inclusion, proposing for 2.6.34. This causes rnp->lock to be held on entry to force_quiescent_state()'s switch statement. This is a first step towards prohibiting starting grace periods while force_quiescent_state() is executing, which will reduce the number and complexity of races that force_quiescent_state() is involved in. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcutree.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c index 53ae959..eae331d 100644 --- a/kernel/rcutree.c +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c @@ -1204,7 +1204,7 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed) } if (relaxed && (long)(rsp->jiffies_force_qs - jiffies) >= 0) - goto unlock_ret; /* no emergency and done recently. */ + goto unlock_fqs_ret; /* no emergency and done recently. */ rsp->n_force_qs++; spin_lock(&rnp->lock); lastcomp = rsp->gpnum - 1; @@ -1213,31 +1213,32 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed) if(!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) { rsp->n_force_qs_ngp++; spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); - goto unlock_ret; /* no GP in progress, time updated. */ + goto unlock_fqs_ret; /* no GP in progress, time updated. */ } - spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); switch (signaled) { case RCU_GP_IDLE: case RCU_GP_INIT: + spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); break; /* grace period idle or initializing, ignore. */ case RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK: + spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT != RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK) break; /* So gcc recognizes the dead code. */ /* Record dyntick-idle state. */ if (rcu_process_dyntick(rsp, lastcomp, dyntick_save_progress_counter)) - goto unlock_ret; + goto unlock_fqs_ret; + spin_lock(&rnp->lock); /* fall into next case. */ case RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED: /* Update state, record completion counter. */ forcenow = 0; - spin_lock(&rnp->lock); if (lastcomp + 1 == rsp->gpnum && lastcomp == rsp->completed && rsp->signaled == signaled) { @@ -1245,23 +1246,31 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed) rsp->completed_fqs = lastcomp; forcenow = signaled == RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED; } - spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); - if (!forcenow) + if (!forcenow) { + spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); break; + } /* fall into next case. */ case RCU_FORCE_QS: /* Check dyntick-idle state, send IPI to laggarts. */ + spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); if (rcu_process_dyntick(rsp, rsp->completed_fqs, rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs)) - goto unlock_ret; + goto unlock_fqs_ret; /* Leave state in case more forcing is required. */ break; + + default: + + spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); + break; } -unlock_ret: +unlock_fqs_ret: spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rsp->fqslock, flags); } -- 1.5.2.5