From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] v3 RCU implementation with fast grace periods Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:51:51 -0700 Message-ID: <20090421165151.GJ6642@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090421045931.GA9953@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090421151034.GA3792@Krystal> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kaber@trash.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, shemminger@vyatta.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org To: Mathieu Desnoyers Return-path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:60717 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756263AbZDUQv4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:51:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090421151034.GA3792@Krystal> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:10:35AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: [ . . . ] > > +void synchronize_rcu_fgp(void) > > +{ > > + mutex_lock(&rcu_fgp_mutex); > > + > > + /* CPUs must see earlier change before parity flip. */ > > + smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1); > > + > > Hrm, my original comment about missing smp_mb() here still applies, I > don't think we have come to an agreement yet. My argument is that smp_call_function() must necessarily contain a full memory barrier, otherwise it cannot function properly. ;-) > > + /* > > + * We must flip twice to correctly handle tasks that stall > > + * in rcu_read_lock_fgp() between the time that they fetch > > + * rcu_fgp_ctr and the time that the store to their CPU's > > + * rcu_fgp_active_readers. No matter when they resume > > + * execution, we will wait for them to get to the corresponding > > + * rcu_read_unlock_fgp(). > > + */ > > + ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY; /* flip parity 0 -> 1 */ > > + rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state(); /* wait for old readers */ > > + ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY; /* flip parity 1 -> 0 */ > > + rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state(); /* wait for old readers */ > > + > > + /* Prevent CPUs from reordering out of prior RCU critical sections. */ > > + smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1); > > + > > Same here. > > So we would need to either add a smp_mb() at both of these locations, or > use on_each_cpu() rather than smp_call_function. Note that this is to > ensure that the "updater" thread executes these memory barriers. Or rely on the barriers that must be part of smp_call_function. ;-) Thanx, Paul > Mathieu > > > > + rcu_fgp_completed++; > > + mutex_unlock(&rcu_fgp_mutex); > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_fgp); > > + > > +/** > > + * rcu_fgp_batches_completed - return batches completed. > > + * @sp: srcu_struct on which to report batch completion. > > + * > > + * Report the number of batches, correlated with, but not necessarily > > + * precisely the same as, the number of grace periods that have elapsed. > > + */ > > +long rcu_fgp_batches_completed(void) > > +{ > > + return rcu_fgp_completed; > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_fgp_batches_completed); > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68