From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: 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, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jengelh@medozas.de,
r000n@r000n.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
Subject: [PATCH RFC] v1 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:25:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090423052520.GA13036@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
First cut of "big hammer" expedited RCU grace periods, but only for
rcu_bh. This creates another softirq vector, so that entering this
softirq vector will have forced an rcu_bh quiescent state (as noted by
Dave Miller). Use smp_call_function() to invoke raise_softirq() on all
CPUs in order to cause this to happen. Track the CPUs that have passed
through a quiescent state (or gone offline) with a cpumask.
Does nothing to expedite callbacks already registered with call_rcu_bh(),
but there is no need to.
Shortcomings:
o Untested, probably does not compile, not for inclusion.
o Does not handle rcu, only rcu_bh.
Thoughts?
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
include/linux/interrupt.h | 1
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 1
kernel/rcupdate.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 108 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
index 91bb76f..b7b58cc 100644
--- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
+++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
@@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ enum
TASKLET_SOFTIRQ,
SCHED_SOFTIRQ,
HRTIMER_SOFTIRQ,
+ RCU_EXPEDITED_SOFTIRQ,
RCU_SOFTIRQ, /* Preferable RCU should always be the last softirq */
NR_SOFTIRQS
diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 15fbb3c..d4af557 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ extern void synchronize_rcu(void);
extern void rcu_barrier(void);
extern void rcu_barrier_bh(void);
extern void rcu_barrier_sched(void);
+extern void synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(void);
/* Internal to kernel */
extern void rcu_init(void);
diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
index a967c9f..bfa98dd 100644
--- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
+++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
@@ -217,10 +217,116 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug(struct notifier_block *self,
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(synchronize_rcu_bh_mutex);
+static long synchronize_rcu_bh_completed; /* Expedited-grace-period count. */
+
+#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
+
+static void __init synchronize_rcu_expedited_init(void)
+{
+}
+
+void synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(void)
+{
+ mutex_lock(&synchronize_rcu_bh_mutex);
+ synchronize_rcu_bh_completed++;
+ mutex_unlock(&synchronize_rcu_bh_mutex);
+}
+
+#else /* #ifndef CONFIG_SMP */
+
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_bh_need_qs);
+static cpumask_var_t rcu_bh_waiting_map;
+
+static void synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited_help(struct softirq_action *unused)
+{
+ if (__get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_need_qs)) {
+ smp_mb();
+ __get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_need_qs) = 0;
+ smp_mb();
+ }
+}
+
+static void rcu_bh_fast_qs(void *unused)
+{
+ raise_softirq(RCU_EXPEDITED_SOFTIRQ);
+}
+
+static void __init synchronize_rcu_expedited_init(void)
+{
+ open_softirq(RCU_EXPEDITED_SOFTIRQ, synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited_help);
+ alloc_bootmem_cpumask_var(&rcu_bh_waiting_map);
+}
+
+void synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(void)
+{
+ int cpu;
+ int done;
+ int times = 0;
+
+ mutex_lock(&synchronize_rcu_bh_mutex);
+
+ /* Take snapshot of online CPUs, blocking CPU hotplug. */
+ preempt_disable();
+ cpumask_copy(rcu_bh_waiting_map, &cpu_online_map);
+ preempt_enable();
+
+ /* Mark each online CPU as needing a quiescent state. */
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, rcu_bh_waiting_map)
+ per_cpu(rcu_bh_need_qs, cpu) = 1;
+
+ /* Call for a quiescent state on each online CPU. */
+ preempt_disable();
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), rcu_bh_waiting_map);
+ smp_call_function(rcu_bh_fast_qs, NULL, 1);
+ preempt_enable();
+
+ /*
+ * Loop waiting for each CPU to either pass through a quiescent
+ * state or to go offline. We don't care which.
+ */
+ for (;;) {
+
+ /* Ignore CPUs that have gone offline, blocking CPU hotplug. */
+ preempt_disable();
+ cpumask_and(rcu_bh_waiting_map, rcu_bh_waiting_map,
+ &cpu_online_map);
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), rcu_bh_waiting_map);
+ preempt_enable();
+
+ /* Check if any CPUs still need a quiescent state. */
+ done = 1;
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, rcu_bh_waiting_map) {
+ if (per_cpu(rcu_bh_need_qs, cpu)) {
+ done = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, rcu_bh_waiting_map);
+ }
+ if (done)
+ break;
+
+ /*
+ * Wait a bit. If we have already waited a fair
+ * amount of time, sleep.
+ */
+ if (++times < 10)
+ udelay(10 * times);
+ else
+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
+ }
+
+ synchronize_rcu_bh_completed++;
+ mutex_unlock(&synchronize_rcu_bh_mutex);
+}
+
+#endif /* #else #ifndef CONFIG_SMP */
+
void __init rcu_init(void)
{
__rcu_init();
hotcpu_notifier(rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug, 0);
+ synchronize_rcu_expedited_init();
}
void rcu_scheduler_starting(void)
next reply other threads:[~2009-04-23 5:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-23 5:25 Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-04-23 6:11 ` [PATCH RFC] v1 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-23 15:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 0:39 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-04-24 1:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-23 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 15:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-23 15:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-23 13:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-23 16:54 ` 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=20090423052520.GA13036@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--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=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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).