From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tytso@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, bunk@kernel.org,
ego@in.ibm.com, oleg@tv-sign.ru, srostedt@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:20:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070921152048.GF15697@goodmis.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070910183412.GC3819@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:34:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +
> +/*
> + * PREEMPT_RCU data structures.
> + */
> +
> +#define GP_STAGES 4
> +struct rcu_data {
> + spinlock_t lock; /* Protect rcu_data fields. */
> + long completed; /* Number of last completed batch. */
> + int waitlistcount;
> + struct tasklet_struct rcu_tasklet;
> + struct rcu_head *nextlist;
> + struct rcu_head **nexttail;
> + struct rcu_head *waitlist[GP_STAGES];
> + struct rcu_head **waittail[GP_STAGES];
> + struct rcu_head *donelist;
> + struct rcu_head **donetail;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE
> + struct rcupreempt_trace trace;
> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
> +};
> +struct rcu_ctrlblk {
> + spinlock_t fliplock; /* Protect state-machine transitions. */
> + long completed; /* Number of last completed batch. */
> +};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_data);
> +static struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_ctrlblk = {
> + .fliplock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
> + .completed = 0,
> +};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int [2], rcu_flipctr) = { 0, 0 };
> +
> +/*
> + * States for rcu_try_flip() and friends.
> + */
> +
> +enum rcu_try_flip_states {
> + rcu_try_flip_idle_state, /* "I" */
> + rcu_try_flip_waitack_state, /* "A" */
> + rcu_try_flip_waitzero_state, /* "Z" */
> + rcu_try_flip_waitmb_state /* "M" */
> +};
> +static enum rcu_try_flip_states rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_idle_state;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE
> +static char *rcu_try_flip_state_names[] =
> + { "idle", "waitack", "waitzero", "waitmb" };
> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
[snip]
> +/*
> + * If a global counter flip has occurred since the last time that we
> + * advanced callbacks, advance them. Hardware interrupts must be
> + * disabled when calling this function.
> + */
> +static void __rcu_advance_callbacks(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> + int i;
> + int wlc = 0;
> +
> + if (rdp->completed != rcu_ctrlblk.completed) {
> + if (rdp->waitlist[GP_STAGES - 1] != NULL) {
> + *rdp->donetail = rdp->waitlist[GP_STAGES - 1];
> + rdp->donetail = rdp->waittail[GP_STAGES - 1];
> + RCU_TRACE_RDP(rcupreempt_trace_move2done, rdp);
> + }
> + for (i = GP_STAGES - 2; i >= 0; i--) {
> + if (rdp->waitlist[i] != NULL) {
> + rdp->waitlist[i + 1] = rdp->waitlist[i];
> + rdp->waittail[i + 1] = rdp->waittail[i];
> + wlc++;
> + } else {
> + rdp->waitlist[i + 1] = NULL;
> + rdp->waittail[i + 1] =
> + &rdp->waitlist[i + 1];
> + }
> + }
> + if (rdp->nextlist != NULL) {
> + rdp->waitlist[0] = rdp->nextlist;
> + rdp->waittail[0] = rdp->nexttail;
> + wlc++;
> + rdp->nextlist = NULL;
> + rdp->nexttail = &rdp->nextlist;
> + RCU_TRACE_RDP(rcupreempt_trace_move2wait, rdp);
> + } else {
> + rdp->waitlist[0] = NULL;
> + rdp->waittail[0] = &rdp->waitlist[0];
> + }
> + rdp->waitlistcount = wlc;
> + rdp->completed = rcu_ctrlblk.completed;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Check to see if this CPU needs to report that it has seen
> + * the most recent counter flip, thereby declaring that all
> + * subsequent rcu_read_lock() invocations will respect this flip.
> + */
> +
> + cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> + if (per_cpu(rcu_flip_flag, cpu) == rcu_flipped) {
> + smp_mb(); /* Subsequent counter accesses must see new value */
> + per_cpu(rcu_flip_flag, cpu) = rcu_flip_seen;
> + smp_mb(); /* Subsequent RCU read-side critical sections */
> + /* seen -after- acknowledgement. */
> + }
> +}
[snip]
> +/*
> + * Attempt a single flip of the counters. Remember, a single flip does
> + * -not- constitute a grace period. Instead, the interval between
> + * at least three consecutive flips is a grace period.
> + *
> + * If anyone is nuts enough to run this CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU implementation
> + * on a large SMP, they might want to use a hierarchical organization of
> + * the per-CPU-counter pairs.
> + */
> +static void rcu_try_flip(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long oldirq;
> +
> + RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_try_flip_1);
> + if (unlikely(!spin_trylock_irqsave(&rcu_ctrlblk.fliplock, oldirq))) {
> + RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_try_flip_e1);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Take the next transition(s) through the RCU grace-period
> + * flip-counter state machine.
> + */
> +
> + switch (rcu_try_flip_state) {
> + case rcu_try_flip_idle_state:
> + if (rcu_try_flip_idle())
> + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_waitack_state;
> + break;
> + case rcu_try_flip_waitack_state:
> + if (rcu_try_flip_waitack())
> + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_waitzero_state;
> + break;
> + case rcu_try_flip_waitzero_state:
> + if (rcu_try_flip_waitzero())
> + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_waitmb_state;
> + break;
> + case rcu_try_flip_waitmb_state:
> + if (rcu_try_flip_waitmb())
> + rcu_try_flip_state = rcu_try_flip_idle_state;
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu_ctrlblk.fliplock, oldirq);
> +}
Paul,
Looking further into this, I still think this is a bit of overkill. We
go through 20 states from call_rcu to list->func().
On call_rcu we put our stuff on the next list. Before we move stuff from
next to wait, we need to go through 4 states. So we have
next -> 4 states -> wait[0] -> 4 states -> wait[1] -> 4 states ->
wait[2] -> 4 states -> wait[3] -> 4 states -> done.
That's 20 states that we go through from the time we add our function to
the list to the time it actually gets called. Do we really need the 4
wait lists?
Seems a bit overkill to me.
What am I missing?
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-21 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-10 18:30 [PATCH RFC 0/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:32 ` [PATCH RFC 1/9] RCU: Split API to permit multiple RCU implementations Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-21 4:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-10 18:33 ` [PATCH RFC 2/9] RCU: Fix barriers Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:34 ` [PATCH RFC 3/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-21 4:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-21 5:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-21 5:56 ` Dipankar Sarma
2007-09-21 14:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-21 15:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-21 22:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-21 22:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-21 22:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-21 23:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-21 23:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-22 0:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-22 1:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-22 1:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-22 3:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-22 4:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-21 15:20 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2007-09-21 23:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-22 0:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-22 1:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-22 1:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-22 2:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-22 4:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-23 17:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-09-24 0:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-26 15:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-09-27 15:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-28 14:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-09-28 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-30 16:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-09-30 23:02 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-10-01 1:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-10-01 18:44 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-10-01 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-10-01 22:09 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-10-01 22:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-10-02 18:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-10-01 1:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:35 ` [PATCH RFC 4/9] RCU: synchronize_sched() workaround for CPU hotplug Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:36 ` [PATCH RFC 5/9] RCU: CPU hotplug support for preemptible RCU Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-30 16:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-10-01 1:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:39 ` [PATCH RFC 6/9] RCU priority boosting " Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-28 22:56 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-09-28 23:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-09-30 3:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-10-05 11:46 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-05 12:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-05 13:21 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-10-05 14:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:39 ` [PATCH RFC 7/9] RCU: rcutorture testing for RCU priority boosting Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:41 ` [PATCH RFC 8/9] RCU: Make RCU priority boosting consume less power Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:42 ` [PATCH RFC 9/9] RCU: preemptible documentation and comment cleanups Paul E. McKenney
2007-09-10 18:44 ` [PATCH RFC 0/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU Ingo Molnar
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=20070921152048.GF15697@goodmis.org \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=srostedt@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@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