From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
davem@davemloft.net, dada1@cosmosbay.com, zbr@ioremap.net,
jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, jengelh@medozas.de,
r000n@r000n.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v7 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:35:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A1A3C23.8090004@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090522190525.GA13286@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Seventh cut of "big hammer" expedited RCU grace periods. This leverages
> the existing per-CPU migration kthreads, as suggested by Ingo. These
> are awakened in a loop, and waited for in a second loop. Not fully
> scalable, but removing the extra hop through smp_call_function
> reduces latency on systems with moderate numbers of CPUs. The
> synchronize_rcu_expedited() and and synchronize_bh_expedited() primitives
> invoke synchronize_sched_expedited(), except for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU,
> where they instead invoke synchronize_rcu() and synchronize_rcu_bh(),
> respectively. This will be fixed in the future, after preemptable RCU
> is folded into the rcutree implementation.
>
I'm strongly need this guarantee:
preempt_disable() guarantees/implies rcu_read_lock().
And
local_irq_diable() guarantees/implies rcu_read_lock().
rcu_read_lock_bh() guarantees/implies rcu_read_lock().
It will simplifies codes.
And
A lot's of current kernel code does not use rcu_read_lock()
when it has preempt_disable()-ed/local_irq_diable()-ed or
when it is in irq/softirq.
Without these guarantees, these code is broken.
> +
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct migration_req, rcu_migration_req);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> +
> +/*
> + * Wait for an rcu-sched grace period to elapse, but use "big hammer"
> + * approach to force grace period to end quickly. This consumes
> + * significant time on all CPUs, and is thus not recommended for
> + * any sort of common-case code.
> + */
> +void synchronize_sched_expedited(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct rq *rq;
> + struct migration_req *req;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> + get_online_cpus();
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + req = &per_cpu(rcu_migration_req, cpu);
> + init_completion(&req->done);
> + req->task = NULL;
> + req->dest_cpu = -1;
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
> + list_add(&req->list, &rq->migration_queue);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
> + wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread);
> + }
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + req = &per_cpu(rcu_migration_req, cpu);
> + wait_for_completion(&req->done);
> + }
> + put_online_cpus();
> + mutex_unlock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_sched_expedited);
> +
> +#endif /* #else #ifndef CONFIG_SMP */
>
>
Very nice implement!
Only one opinion:
get_online_cpus() is a large lock, a lot's of lock in kernel is required
after cpu_hotplug.lock.
_cpu_down()
cpu_hotplug_begin()
mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock)
__raw_notifier_call_chain(CPU_DOWN_PREPARE)
Lock a-kernel-lock.
It means when we have held a-kernel-lock, we can not call
synchronize_sched_expedited(). get_online_cpus() narrows
synchronize_sched_expedited()'s usages.
I think we can reuse req->dest_cpu and remove get_online_cpus().
(and use preempt_disable() and for_each_possible_cpu())
req->dest_cpu = -2 means @req is not queued
req->dest_cpu = -1 means @req is queued
a little like this code:
mutex_lock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
preempt_disable()
if (cpu is not online)
just set req->dest_cpu to -2;
else
init and queue req, and wake_up_process().
preempt_enable()
}
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
if (req is queued)
wait_for_completion().
}
mutex_unlock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
The coupling of synchronize_sched_expedited() and migration_req
is largely increased:
1) The offline cpu's per_cpu(rcu_migration_req, cpu) is handled.
See migration_call::CPU_DEAD
2) migration_call() is the highest priority of cpu notifiers,
So even any other cpu notifier calls synchronize_sched_expedited(),
It'll not cause DEADLOCK.
Lai.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-25 6:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-22 19:05 [PATCH RFC] v7 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-25 6:35 ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2009-05-25 16:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-26 1:03 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-05-26 1:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-26 15:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-26 16:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-05-26 18:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-27 1:47 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-05-27 4:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-27 14:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-05-28 23:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-27 1:57 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-05-27 4:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-27 5:37 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-05-29 0:08 ` 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=4A1A3C23.8090004@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=r000n@r000n.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zbr@ioremap.net \
/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