From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@android.com, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] rcu: Simplify rcu_note_context_switch exit from critical section
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:03:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190701200310.GP26519@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190701040415.219001-2-joel@joelfernandes.org>
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 12:04:14AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> The rcu_preempt_note_context_switch() tries to handle cases where
> __rcu_read_unlock() got preempted and then the context switch path does
> the reporting of the quiscent state along with clearing any bits in the
> rcu_read_unlock_special union.
>
> This can be handled by just calling rcu_deferred_qs() which was added
> during the RCU consolidation work and already does these checks.
>
> Tested RCU config TREE03 for an hour which succeeds.
>
> Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: kernel-team@android.com
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
My first reaction was "that cannot possibly work", but after a bit of
digging, it really does appear to work just fine. I therefore expanded
the commit log a bit, so please check it to catch any messups on my part.
Very cool, thank you very much! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit ce547cb41ed7662f70d0b07d4c7f7555ba130c61
Author: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Mon Jul 1 00:04:14 2019 -0400
rcu: Simplify rcu_note_context_switch exit from critical section
Because __rcu_read_unlock() can be preempted just before the call to
rcu_read_unlock_special(), it is possible for a task to be preempted just
before it would have fully exited its RCU read-side critical section.
This would result in a needless extension of that critical section until
that task was resumed, which might in turn result in a needlessly
long grace period, needless RCU priority boosting, and needless
force-quiescent-state actions. Therefore, rcu_note_context_switch()
invokes __rcu_read_unlock() followed by rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() when
it detects this situation. This action by rcu_note_context_switch()
ends the RCU read-side critical section immediately.
Of course, once the task resumes, it will invoke rcu_read_unlock_special()
redundantly. This is harmless because the fact that a preemption
happened means that interrupts, preemption, and softirqs cannot
have been disabled, so there would be no deferred quiescent state.
While ->rcu_read_lock_nesting remains less than zero, none of the
->rcu_read_unlock_special.b bits can be set, and they were all zeroed by
the call to rcu_note_context_switch() at task-preemption time. Therefore,
setting ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint to false has no effect.
Therefore, the extra call to rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore()
would return immediately. With one possible exception, which is
if an expedited grace period started just as the task was being
resumed, which could leave ->exp_deferred_qs set. This will cause
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore() to invoke rcu_report_exp_rdp(),
reporting the quiescent state, just as it should. (Such an expedited
grace period won't affect the preemption code path due to interrupts
having already been disabled.)
But when rcu_note_context_switch() invokes __rcu_read_unlock(), it
is doing so with preemption disabled, hence __rcu_read_unlock() will
unconditionally defer the quiescent state, only to immediately invoke
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(), thus immediately reporting the deferred
quiescent state. It turns out to be safe (and faster) to instead
just invoke rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() without the __rcu_read_unlock()
middleman.
Because this is the invocation during the preemption (as opposed to
the invocation just after the resume), at least one of the bits in
->rcu_read_unlock_special.b must be set and ->rcu_read_lock_nesting
must be negative. This means that rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs() must
return true, avoiding the early exit from rcu_preempt_deferred_qs().
Thus, rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore() will be invoked immediately,
as required.
This commit therefore simplifies the CONFIG_PREEMPT=y version of
rcu_note_context_switch() by removing the "else if" branch of its
"if" statement. This change means that all callers that would have
invoked rcu_read_unlock_special() followed by rcu_preempt_deferred_qs()
will now simply invoke rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(), thus avoiding the
rcu_read_unlock_special() middleman when __rcu_read_unlock() is preempted.
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@android.com
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 187dc076c497..214e4689c29d 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -313,15 +313,6 @@ void rcu_note_context_switch(bool preempt)
? rnp->gp_seq
: rcu_seq_snap(&rnp->gp_seq));
rcu_preempt_ctxt_queue(rnp, rdp);
- } else if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting < 0 &&
- t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s) {
-
- /*
- * Complete exit from RCU read-side critical section on
- * behalf of preempted instance of __rcu_read_unlock().
- */
- rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
- rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
} else {
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-01 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-01 4:04 [RFC 1/3] rcu: Expedite the rcu quiescent state reporting if help needed Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-01 4:04 ` [RFC 2/3] rcu: Simplify rcu_note_context_switch exit from critical section Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-01 20:03 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-07-01 21:33 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-01 21:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-01 4:04 ` [RFC 3/3] Revert "rcutorture: Tweak kvm options" Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-01 12:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-07-01 14:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-01 14:48 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-07-01 14:59 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-01 20:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-01 21:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-01 21:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-02 2:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-02 3:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-01 13:53 ` [RFC 1/3] rcu: Expedite the rcu quiescent state reporting if help needed Joel Fernandes
2019-07-02 3:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-02 11:40 ` Joel Fernandes
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=20190701200310.GP26519@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/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).