From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
kernel-team@android.com,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/20] doc: rcu: Better clarify the rcu_segcblist ->len field
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:56:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181111195645.9205-7-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181111195619.GA6958@linux.ibm.com>
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
An important note under the rcu_segcblist description could use a more
detailed description. Especially explanation of the scenario where the
->head field may be temporarily NULL making it not wise to rely on it
to determine if callbacks are associated with the rcu_segcblist.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: <kernel-team@android.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
---
.../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html | 23 ++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
index 28b241074c86..3ed5f0182bc4 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
@@ -928,17 +928,24 @@ this <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt> structure, <i>not</i> the <tt>->head</tt>
pointer.
The reason for this is that all the ready-to-invoke callbacks
(that is, those in the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment) are extracted
-all at once at callback-invocation time.
+all at once at callback-invocation time (<tt>rcu_do_batch</tt>), due
+to which <tt>->head</tt> may be set to NULL if there are no not-done
+callbacks remaining in the <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt>.
If callback invocation must be postponed, for example, because a
high-priority process just woke up on this CPU, then the remaining
-callbacks are placed back on the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment.
-Either way, the <tt>->len</tt> and <tt>->len_lazy</tt> counts
-are adjusted after the corresponding callbacks have been invoked, and so
-again it is the <tt>->len</tt> count that accurately reflects whether
-or not there are callbacks associated with this <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt>
-structure.
+callbacks are placed back on the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment and
+<tt>->head</tt> once again points to the start of the segment.
+In short, the head field can briefly be <tt>NULL</tt> even though the
+CPU has callbacks present the entire time.
+Therefore, it is not appropriate to test the <tt>->head</tt> pointer
+for <tt>NULL</tt>.
+
+<p>In contrast, the <tt>->len</tt> and <tt>->len_lazy</tt> counts
+are adjusted only after the corresponding callbacks have been invoked.
+This means that the <tt>->len</tt> count is zero only if
+the <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt> structure really is devoid of callbacks.
Of course, off-CPU sampling of the <tt>->len</tt> count requires
-the use of appropriate synchronization, for example, memory barriers.
+careful use of appropriate synchronization, for example, memory barriers.
This synchronization can be a bit subtle, particularly in the case
of <tt>rcu_barrier()</tt>.
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-11 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-11 19:56 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/20] Documentation updates for v4.21/v5.0 Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/20] doc: Set down forward-progress requirements Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] doc: Clarify RCU data-structure comment about rcu_tree fanout Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/20] doc: Remove rcu_preempt_state reference in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/20] doc: rcu: Update information about resched_cpu Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/20] doc: rcu: Remove rcu_dynticks from Data-Structures Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/20] doc: rcu: Update Data-Structures for RCU flavor consolidation Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/20] doc: rcu: Update description of gp_seq fields in rcu_data Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/20] doc: Document rcutorture forward-progress test kernel parameters Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/20] doc: rcu: Update core and full API in whatisRCU Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] doc: rcu: Add more rationale for using rcu_read_lock_sched in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete suggestion from checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete checklist item about synchronize_rcu usage Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/20] doc: rcu: Encourage use of rcu_barrier in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/20] doc: Make reader aware of rcu_dereference_protected Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/20] doc: Remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/20] doc: Make listing in RCU perf/scale requirements use rcu_assign_pointer() Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/20] doc: RCU scheduler spinlock rcu_read_unlock() restriction remains Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/20] doc: Correct parameter in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/20] doc: Fix "struction" typo in RCU memory-ordering documentation 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=20181111195645.9205-7-paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.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