From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/17] rcu: Eliminate read-modify-write ACCESS_ONCE() calls
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:35:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140708203459.GU4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHMCBnctjpo1Kdi71-6mEiTEnBfOhMTZC1gTsEx42z-UL=Bw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:59:46PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > RCU contains code of the following forms:
> >
> > ACCESS_ONCE(x)++;
> > ACCESS_ONCE(x) += y;
> > ACCESS_ONCE(x) -= y;
> >
> > Now these constructs do operate correctly, but they really result in a
> > pair of volatile accesses, one to do the load and another to do the store.
> > This can be confusing, as the casual reader might well assume that (for
> > example) gcc might generate a memory-to-memory add instruction for each
> > of these three cases. In fact, gcc will do no such thing. Also, there
> > is a good chance that the kernel will move to separate load and store
> > variants of ACCESS_ONCE(), and constructs like the above could easily
> > confuse both people and scripts attempting to make that sort of change.
> > Finally, most of RCU's read-modify-write uses of ACCESS_ONCE() really
> > only need the store to be volatile, so that the read-modify-write form
> > might be misleading.
> >
> > This commit therefore changes the above forms in RCU so that each instance
> > of ACCESS_ONCE() either does a load or a store, but not both. In a few
> > cases, ACCESS_ONCE() was not critical, for example, for maintaining
> > statisitics. In these cases, ACCESS_ONCE() has been dispensed with
> > entirely.
> >
>
> Is there any reason why |=, &= cannot be replaced similarly? Also
> there are a few more in tree_plugin.h. Please find patch below:
Good catch, I clearly didn't include enough patterns in my search.
But please see below. And please rebase onto branch rcu/dev in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git,
as this patch set does not apply.
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index dac6d20..f500395 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1700,7 +1700,7 @@ static int rcu_gp_fqs(struct rcu_state *rsp, int
> fqs_state_in)
> if (ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS) {
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&rnp->lock);
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
> - ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) &= ~RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS;
> + ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) = rsp->gp_flags & ~RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS;
Here we need ACCESS_ONCE() around both instances of rsp->gp_flags.
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rnp->lock);
> }
> return fqs_state;
> @@ -2514,7 +2514,7 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp_old->lock, flags);
> return; /* Someone beat us to it. */
> }
> - ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) |= RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS;
> + ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) = rsp->gp_flags | RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS;
Same here.
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp_old->lock, flags);
> wake_up(&rsp->gp_wq); /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index 1a4ab26..752d382 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -897,7 +897,8 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
>
> /* Clean up and exit. */
> smp_mb(); /* ensure expedited GP seen before counter increment. */
> - ACCESS_ONCE(sync_rcu_preempt_exp_count)++;
> + ACCESS_ONCE(sync_rcu_preempt_exp_count) =
> + sync_rcu_preempt_exp_count + 1;
This one is OK as is because this code path is the only thing that
updates sync_rcu_preempt_exp_count.
> unlock_mb_ret:
> mutex_unlock(&sync_rcu_preempt_exp_mutex);
> mb_ret:
> @@ -2307,8 +2308,9 @@ static int rcu_nocb_kthread(void *arg)
> list = next;
> }
> trace_rcu_batch_end(rdp->rsp->name, c, !!list, 0, 0, 1);
> - ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_p_count) -= c;
> - ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_p_count_lazy) -= cl;
> + ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_p_count) = rdp->nocb_p_count - c;
> + ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_p_count_lazy) =
> + rdp->nocb_p_count_lazy - cl;
Same here, no other code path updates ->nocb_p_count_lazy.
> rdp->n_nocbs_invoked += c;
> }
> return 0;
>
> --
> Pranith
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-08 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-07 22:37 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] Miscellaneous fixes for 3.17 Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/17] rcu: Document deadlock-avoidance information for rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/17] rcu: Handle obsolete references to TINY_PREEMPT_RCU Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] signal: Explain local_irq_save() call Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 9:01 ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-08 15:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/17] rcu: Make rcu node arrays static const char * const Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/17] rcu: remove redundant ACCESS_ONCE() from tick_do_timer_cpu Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 14:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/17] rcu: Eliminate read-modify-write ACCESS_ONCE() calls Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 16:59 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-08 20:35 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-07-08 20:43 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-08 21:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/17] rcu: Loosen __call_rcu()'s rcu_head alignment constraint Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/17] rcu: Allow post-unlock reference for rt_mutex Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09 1:50 ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-09 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/17] rcu: Check both root and current rcu_node when setting up future grace period Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/17] rcu: Simplify priority boosting by putting rt_mutex in rcu_node Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 15:24 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 18:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 20:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 22:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09 15:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 18:10 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 18:25 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 18:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 18:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 19:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 19:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 19:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 20:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 20:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-12 1:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-14 13:52 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 20:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-14 13:53 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/17] rcu: Don't use NMIs to dump other CPUs' stacks Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/17] rcu: Use __this_cpu_read() instead of per_cpu_ptr() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/17] rcu: remove CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 8:11 ` Paul Bolle
2014-07-08 13:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/17] rcu: Fix __rcu_reclaim() to use true/false for bool Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/17] rcu: Fix a sparse warning in rcu_initiate_boost() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/17] rcu: Fix a sparse warning in rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09 2:14 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] Miscellaneous fixes for 3.17 Lai Jiangshan
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=20140708203459.GU4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox