From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
patches@linaro.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/7] rcu: v2 Inlinable preemptible rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:19:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120414161953.GA18140@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
Hello!
This series is version two of the inlinable versions of preemptible
RCU's __rcu_read_lock() and __rcu_read_unlock(). The first version may
be found at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/25/94. The individual commits
in this new series are as follows:
1. Move preemptible RCU's hook in the scheduler from the common
RCU scheduler-entry hook to just before the scheduler's call
to switch_to. This reduces overhead in the case where the
scheduler is called but does not switch and also sets the
stage for saving and restoring the per-CPU variables needed
for inlining.
2. Create the per-CPU variables and rename rcu_read_unlock_special()
to avoid name conflict.
3. Make exit_rcu() use a more precise method of checking the need
for exit-time RCU-related cleanup, and consolidate the two
identical versions of exit_rcu() into one place.
4. Make __rcu_read_lock() and __rcu_read_unlock() use the per-CPU
variables, but leave them out of line for the moment. This
requires adding a second preemptible-RCU hook in the scheduler
to restore the values of the per-CPU variables.
5. Silence bogus copy_to_user() build errors that seem to be triggered
by differences in gcc's inlining decisions when __rcu_read_lock()
becomes inlinable. Apparently, copy_to_user() needs to be inlined
in order to function correctly? Hmmm, sort of like kfree_rcu().
6. Inline __rcu_read_lock().
7. Inline __rcu_read_unlock().
With these changes, the 32-bit x86 gcc compiler compiles this:
void rcu_read_lock_code(void)
{
rcu_read_lock();
}
to this:
000000d0 <rcu_read_lock_code>:
d0: 64 ff 05 00 00 00 00 incl %fs:0x0
d7: c3 ret
d8: 90 nop
d9: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
It also compiles this:
void rcu_read_unlock_code(void)
{
rcu_read_unlock();
}
to this:
000000e0 <rcu_read_unlock_code>:
e0: 64 a1 00 00 00 00 mov %fs:0x0,%eax
e6: 83 f8 01 cmp $0x1,%eax
e9: 74 0d je f8 <rcu_read_unlock_code+0x18>
eb: 64 ff 0d 00 00 00 00 decl %fs:0x0
f2: c3 ret
f3: 90 nop
f4: 8d 74 26 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
f8: 64 c7 05 00 00 00 00 movl $0x80000000,%fs:0x0
ff: 00 00 00 80
103: 64 a1 00 00 00 00 mov %fs:0x0,%eax
109: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
10b: 75 0c jne 119 <rcu_read_unlock_code+0x39>
10d: 64 c7 05 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,%fs:0x0
114: 00 00 00 00
118: c3 ret
119: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
120: e8 fc ff ff ff call 121 <rcu_read_unlock_code+0x41>
125: eb e6 jmp 10d <rcu_read_unlock_code+0x2d>
It is therefore not at all clear to me that the final patch in this
series is worthwhile. Unless someone comes up with a good reason to
keep it, I will drop it. The only possible justification I can see is
that gcc could (in theory, anyway) drop dead code in the case of nested
RCU read-side critical sections (everything from address f3 onwards),
but this just doesn't cut it for me at the moment. I could also imagine
having the inlined portion contain only the nesting check and decrement,
along with a call to an out-of-line function that does the rest, but
this looks to me to bloat the code for no good reason.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
arch/um/drivers/mconsole_kern.c | 3
b/arch/um/drivers/mconsole_kern.c | 1
b/fs/binfmt_misc.c | 4 -
b/include/linux/init_task.h | 4 -
b/include/linux/rcupdate.h | 1
b/include/linux/rcutiny.h | 6 -
b/include/linux/rcutree.h | 12 ---
b/include/linux/sched.h | 10 +++
b/kernel/rcu.h | 4 +
b/kernel/rcupdate.c | 5 +
b/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h | 10 +--
b/kernel/rcutree.c | 1
b/kernel/rcutree.h | 1
b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 14 ----
b/kernel/sched/core.c | 1
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++-
include/linux/rcutiny.h | 5 -
include/linux/sched.h | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
kernel/rcu.h | 4 -
kernel/rcupdate.c | 126 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h | 123 +++++++------------------------------
kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 114 ++++++++--------------------------
kernel/sched/core.c | 3
23 files changed, 321 insertions(+), 295 deletions(-)
next reply other threads:[~2012-04-14 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-14 16:19 Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2012-04-14 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC 1/7] rcu: Move PREEMPT_RCU preemption to switch_to() invocation Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC 2/7] rcu: Create per-CPU variables and avoid name conflict Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC 3/7] rcu: Make exit_rcu() more precise and consolidate Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC 4/7] rcu: Move __rcu_read_lock() and __rcu_read_unlock() to per-CPU variables Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC 5/7] fs: Silence bogus copy_to_user() build errors Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC 6/7] rcu: Inline preemptible RCU __rcu_read_lock() Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC 7/7] rcu: Inline preemptible RCU __rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:28 ` [PATCH RFC 0/7] rcu: v2 Inlinable preemptible rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() Linus Torvalds
2012-04-14 16:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-14 16:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-14 16:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-14 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-14 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-15 16:25 ` 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=20120414161953.GA18140@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox