Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 15/20] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized

[Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 12/18/2010 04:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> 
> When a CPU that was in an extended quiescent state wakes
> up and catches up with grace periods that remote CPUs
> completed on its behalf, we update the completed field
> but not the gpnum that keeps a stale value of a backward
> grace period ID.
> 
> Later, note_new_gpnum() will interpret the shift between
> the local CPU and the node grace period ID as some new grace
> period to handle and will then start to hunt quiescent state.
> 
> But if every grace periods have already been completed, this
> interpretation becomes broken. And we'll be stuck in clusters
> of spurious softirqs because rcu_report_qs_rdp() will make
> this broken state run into infinite loop.
> 
> The solution, as suggested by Lai Jiangshan, is to ensure that
> the gpnum and completed fields are well synchronized when we catch
> up with completed grace periods on their behalf by other cpus.
> This way we won't start noting spurious new grace periods.
> 
> Suggested-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/rcutree.c |    9 +++++++++
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 916f42b..8105271 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -680,6 +680,15 @@ __rcu_process_gp_end(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_dat
>  		rdp->completed = rnp->completed;
>  
>  		/*
> +		 * If we were in an extended quiescent state, we may have
> +		 * missed some grace periods that others CPUs took care on
> +		 * our behalf. Catch up with this state to avoid noting
> +		 * spurious new grace periods.
> +		 */
> +		if (rdp->completed > rdp->gpnum)
> +			rdp->gpnum = rdp->completed;

Need to use ULONG_CMP_LT(rdp->gpnum, rdp->completed) instead.

> +
> +		/*
>  		 * If another CPU handled our extended quiescent states and
>  		 * we have no more grace period to complete yet, then stop
>  		 * chasing quiescent states.