From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, oleg@redhat.com,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 7/9] rbtree: Implement generic latch_tree
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:24:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150228213110.248177252@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20150228212447.381543289@infradead.org
[-- Attachment #1: peterz-rbtree-latch.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4347 bytes --]
Implement a latched RB-tree in order to get RCU style lookups.
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
include/linux/rbtree_latch.h | 140 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 140 insertions(+)
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/rbtree_latch.h
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+/*
+ * Latched RB-trees
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2015 Intel Corp., Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
+ */
+
+#ifndef RB_TREE_LATCH_H
+#define RB_TREE_LATCH_H
+
+#include <linux/rbtree.h>
+#include <linux/seqlock.h>
+
+/*
+ * Since RB-trees have non atomic modifications they're not suited for
+ * RCU/lockless queries.
+ *
+ * Employ the latch technique -- see @raw_write_seqcount_latch -- to implement
+ * a latched RB-tree which does allow this by virtue of always having (at
+ * least) one stable copy of the tree.
+ *
+ * However, while we have the guarantee that there is at all times one stable
+ * copy, this does not guarantee an iteration will not observe modifications.
+ * What might have been a stable copy at the start of the iteration, need not
+ * remain so for the duration of the iteration.
+ *
+ * Therefore, this does require a lockless RB-tree iteration to be non-fatal in
+ * all circumstances; see the comment in lib/rbtree.c.
+ */
+
+struct latch_tree_node {
+ void *priv;
+ struct rb_node node;
+};
+
+struct latch_tree_nodes {
+ struct latch_tree_node node[2];
+};
+
+struct latch_tree_root {
+ seqcount_t seq;
+ struct rb_root tree[2];
+};
+
+struct latch_tree_ops {
+ bool (*less)(struct latch_tree_node *a, struct latch_tree_node *b);
+ int (*comp)(void *key, struct latch_tree_node *b);
+};
+
+static __always_inline void
+__lt_insert(struct latch_tree_node *ltn, struct rb_root *root,
+ bool (*less)(struct latch_tree_node *a, struct latch_tree_node *b))
+{
+ struct rb_node **link = &root->rb_node;
+ struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
+ struct latch_tree_node *ltp;
+
+ while (*link) {
+ parent = *link;
+ ltp = container_of(parent, struct latch_tree_node, node);
+
+ if (less(ltn, ltp))
+ link = &parent->rb_left;
+ else
+ link = &parent->rb_right;
+ }
+
+ rb_link_node_rcu(<n->node, parent, link);
+ rb_insert_color(<n->node, root);
+}
+
+static __always_inline void
+__lt_erase(struct latch_tree_node *ltn, struct rb_root *root)
+{
+ rb_erase(<n->node, root);
+}
+
+static __always_inline struct latch_tree_node *
+__lt_find(void *key, struct rb_root *root,
+ int (*comp)(void *key, struct latch_tree_node *ltn))
+{
+ struct rb_node *n = rcu_dereference_raw(root->rb_node);
+ struct latch_tree_node *ltn;
+ int c;
+
+ while (n) {
+ ltn = container_of(n, struct latch_tree_node, node);
+ c = comp(key, ltn);
+
+ if (c < 0)
+ n = rcu_dereference_raw(n->rb_left);
+ else if (c > 0)
+ n = rcu_dereference_raw(n->rb_right);
+ else
+ return ltn;
+ }
+
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+static __always_inline void
+latch_tree_insert(struct latch_tree_nodes *nodes,
+ struct latch_tree_root *root,
+ void *priv,
+ const struct latch_tree_ops *ops)
+{
+ nodes->node[0].priv = nodes->node[1].priv = priv;
+
+ raw_write_seqcount_latch(&root->seq);
+ __lt_insert(&nodes->node[0], &root->tree[0], ops->less);
+ raw_write_seqcount_latch(&root->seq);
+ __lt_insert(&nodes->node[1], &root->tree[1], ops->less);
+}
+
+static __always_inline void
+latch_tree_erase(struct latch_tree_nodes *nodes,
+ struct latch_tree_root *root,
+ const struct latch_tree_ops *ops)
+{
+ raw_write_seqcount_latch(&root->seq);
+ __lt_erase(&nodes->node[0], &root->tree[0]);
+ raw_write_seqcount_latch(&root->seq);
+ __lt_erase(&nodes->node[1], &root->tree[1]);
+}
+
+static __always_inline struct latch_tree_node *
+latch_tree_find(void *key, struct latch_tree_root *root,
+ const struct latch_tree_ops *ops)
+{
+ struct latch_tree_node *node;
+ unsigned int seq;
+
+ do {
+ seq = raw_read_seqcount(&root->seq);
+ node = __lt_find(key, &root->tree[seq & 1], ops->comp);
+ } while (read_seqcount_retry(&root->seq, seq));
+
+ return node;
+}
+
+#endif /* RB_TREE_LATCH_H */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-28 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-28 21:24 [RFC][PATCH 0/9] latched RB-trees and __module_address() Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/9] klp: Fix obvious RCU fail Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-01 20:09 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-03-02 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 9:13 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-03-02 10:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 9:21 ` Petr Mladek
2015-03-02 1:31 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-03-02 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-03-02 21:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/9] module: Sanitize RCU usage and locking Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 11:16 ` Rusty Russell
2015-03-02 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 19:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-03-17 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/9] module: Annotate module version magic Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 19:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/9] module, jump_label: Fix module locking Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/9] rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-01 13:52 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-03-02 8:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-01 21:11 ` Michel Lespinasse
2015-03-02 7:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-03-02 8:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 9:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/9] seqlock: Better document raw_write_seqcount_latch() Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-01 14:02 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-03-02 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 19:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-03-01 21:12 ` Michel Lespinasse
2015-02-28 21:24 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-03-01 21:17 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/9] rbtree: Implement generic latch_tree Michel Lespinasse
2015-03-02 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-02 19:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-03-17 17:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 8/9] module: Optimize __module_address() using a latched RB-tree Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-28 21:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 9/9] module: Use __module_address() for module_address_lookup() Peter Zijlstra
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=20150228213110.248177252@infradead.org \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=David.Woodhouse@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=walken@google.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