[GIT PULL] RCU fixes

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Apr 19 2010 - 10:52:12 EST


Linus,

Please pull the latest core-fixes-for-linus git tree from:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git core-fixes-for-linus

Thanks,

Ingo

------------------>
David Howells (1):
rcu: Better explain the condition parameter of rcu_dereference_check()

Paul E. McKenney (3):
rcu: Add rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference_protected
rcu: Update docs for rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference_protected
rcu: Make RCU lockdep check the lockdep_recursion variable


Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt | 39 +++++++++++++----------
Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 7 ++--
Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt | 28 +++++++++++++++-
Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 6 +++
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/rcupdate.c | 7 ++++
6 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
index a6d32e6..a8536cb 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ NMI handler.
cpu = smp_processor_id();
++nmi_count(cpu);

- if (!rcu_dereference(nmi_callback)(regs, cpu))
+ if (!rcu_dereference_sched(nmi_callback)(regs, cpu))
default_do_nmi(regs);

nmi_exit();
@@ -47,12 +47,13 @@ function pointer. If this handler returns zero, do_nmi() invokes the
default_do_nmi() function to handle a machine-specific NMI. Finally,
preemption is restored.

-Strictly speaking, rcu_dereference() is not needed, since this code runs
-only on i386, which does not need rcu_dereference() anyway. However,
-it is a good documentation aid, particularly for anyone attempting to
-do something similar on Alpha.
+In theory, rcu_dereference_sched() is not needed, since this code runs
+only on i386, which in theory does not need rcu_dereference_sched()
+anyway. However, in practice it is a good documentation aid, particularly
+for anyone attempting to do something similar on Alpha or on systems
+with aggressive optimizing compilers.

-Quick Quiz: Why might the rcu_dereference() be necessary on Alpha,
+Quick Quiz: Why might the rcu_dereference_sched() be necessary on Alpha,
given that the code referenced by the pointer is read-only?


@@ -99,17 +100,21 @@ invoke irq_enter() and irq_exit() on NMI entry and exit, respectively.

Answer to Quick Quiz

- Why might the rcu_dereference() be necessary on Alpha, given
+ Why might the rcu_dereference_sched() be necessary on Alpha, given
that the code referenced by the pointer is read-only?

Answer: The caller to set_nmi_callback() might well have
- initialized some data that is to be used by the
- new NMI handler. In this case, the rcu_dereference()
- would be needed, because otherwise a CPU that received
- an NMI just after the new handler was set might see
- the pointer to the new NMI handler, but the old
- pre-initialized version of the handler's data.
-
- More important, the rcu_dereference() makes it clear
- to someone reading the code that the pointer is being
- protected by RCU.
+ initialized some data that is to be used by the new NMI
+ handler. In this case, the rcu_dereference_sched() would
+ be needed, because otherwise a CPU that received an NMI
+ just after the new handler was set might see the pointer
+ to the new NMI handler, but the old pre-initialized
+ version of the handler's data.
+
+ This same sad story can happen on other CPUs when using
+ a compiler with aggressive pointer-value speculation
+ optimizations.
+
+ More important, the rcu_dereference_sched() makes it
+ clear to someone reading the code that the pointer is
+ being protected by RCU-sched.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
index cbc180f..790d1a8 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
@@ -260,7 +260,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
The reason that it is permissible to use RCU list-traversal
primitives when the update-side lock is held is that doing so
can be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common code is
- shared between readers and updaters.
+ shared between readers and updaters. Additional primitives
+ are provided for this case, as discussed in lockdep.txt.

10. Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must-
@@ -344,8 +345,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
requiring SRCU's read-side deadlock immunity or low read-side
realtime latency.

- Note that, rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() relate to
- SRCU just as they do to other forms of RCU.
+ Note that, rcu_assign_pointer() relates to SRCU just as they do
+ to other forms of RCU.

15. The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends
is to wait until all pre-existing readers have finished before
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
index fe24b58..d7a49b2 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
@@ -32,9 +32,20 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives:
srcu_dereference(p, sp):
Check for SRCU read-side critical section.
rcu_dereference_check(p, c):
- Use explicit check expression "c".
+ Use explicit check expression "c". This is useful in
+ code that is invoked by both readers and updaters.
rcu_dereference_raw(p)
Don't check. (Use sparingly, if at all.)
+ rcu_dereference_protected(p, c):
+ Use explicit check expression "c", and omit all barriers
+ and compiler constraints. This is useful when the data
+ structure cannot change, for example, in code that is
+ invoked only by updaters.
+ rcu_access_pointer(p):
+ Return the value of the pointer and omit all barriers,
+ but retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating
+ or coalescsing. This is useful when when testing the
+ value of the pointer itself, for example, against NULL.

The rcu_dereference_check() check expression can be any boolean
expression, but would normally include one of the rcu_read_lock_held()
@@ -59,7 +70,20 @@ In case (1), the pointer is picked up in an RCU-safe manner for vanilla
RCU read-side critical sections, in case (2) the ->file_lock prevents
any change from taking place, and finally, in case (3) the current task
is the only task accessing the file_struct, again preventing any change
-from taking place.
+from taking place. If the above statement was invoked only from updater
+code, it could instead be written as follows:
+
+ file = rcu_dereference_protected(fdt->fd[fd],
+ lockdep_is_held(&files->file_lock) ||
+ atomic_read(&files->count) == 1);
+
+This would verify cases #2 and #3 above, and furthermore lockdep would
+complain if this was used in an RCU read-side critical section unless one
+of these two cases held. Because rcu_dereference_protected() omits all
+barriers and compiler constraints, it generates better code than do the
+other flavors of rcu_dereference(). On the other hand, it is illegal
+to use rcu_dereference_protected() if either the RCU-protected pointer
+or the RCU-protected data that it points to can change concurrently.

There are currently only "universal" versions of the rcu_assign_pointer()
and RCU list-/tree-traversal primitives, which do not (yet) check for
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
index 1dc00ee..cfaac34 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
@@ -840,6 +840,12 @@ SRCU: Initialization/cleanup
init_srcu_struct
cleanup_srcu_struct

+All: lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access
+
+ rcu_dereference_check
+ rcu_dereference_protected
+ rcu_access_pointer
+
See the comment headers in the source code (or the docbook generated
from them) for more information.

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 872a98e..07db2fe 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -101,10 +101,7 @@ extern struct lockdep_map rcu_sched_lock_map;
# define rcu_read_release_sched() \
lock_release(&rcu_sched_lock_map, 1, _THIS_IP_)

-static inline int debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void)
-{
- return likely(rcu_scheduler_active && debug_locks);
-}
+extern int debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void);

/**
* rcu_read_lock_held - might we be in RCU read-side critical section?
@@ -195,12 +192,30 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)

/**
* rcu_dereference_check - rcu_dereference with debug checking
+ * @p: The pointer to read, prior to dereferencing
+ * @c: The conditions under which the dereference will take place
+ *
+ * Do an rcu_dereference(), but check that the conditions under which the
+ * dereference will take place are correct. Typically the conditions indicate
+ * the various locking conditions that should be held at that point. The check
+ * should return true if the conditions are satisfied.
+ *
+ * For example:
+ *
+ * bar = rcu_dereference_check(foo->bar, rcu_read_lock_held() ||
+ * lockdep_is_held(&foo->lock));
*
- * Do an rcu_dereference(), but check that the context is correct.
- * For example, rcu_dereference_check(gp, rcu_read_lock_held()) to
- * ensure that the rcu_dereference_check() executes within an RCU
- * read-side critical section. It is also possible to check for
- * locks being held, for example, by using lockdep_is_held().
+ * could be used to indicate to lockdep that foo->bar may only be dereferenced
+ * if either the RCU read lock is held, or that the lock required to replace
+ * the bar struct at foo->bar is held.
+ *
+ * Note that the list of conditions may also include indications of when a lock
+ * need not be held, for example during initialisation or destruction of the
+ * target struct:
+ *
+ * bar = rcu_dereference_check(foo->bar, rcu_read_lock_held() ||
+ * lockdep_is_held(&foo->lock) ||
+ * atomic_read(&foo->usage) == 0);
*/
#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) \
({ \
@@ -209,13 +224,45 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
rcu_dereference_raw(p); \
})

+/**
+ * rcu_dereference_protected - fetch RCU pointer when updates prevented
+ *
+ * Return the value of the specified RCU-protected pointer, but omit
+ * both the smp_read_barrier_depends() and the ACCESS_ONCE(). This
+ * is useful in cases where update-side locks prevent the value of the
+ * pointer from changing. Please note that this primitive does -not-
+ * prevent the compiler from repeating this reference or combining it
+ * with other references, so it should not be used without protection
+ * of appropriate locks.
+ */
+#define rcu_dereference_protected(p, c) \
+ ({ \
+ if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !(c)) \
+ lockdep_rcu_dereference(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
+ (p); \
+ })
+
#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */

#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) rcu_dereference_raw(p)
+#define rcu_dereference_protected(p, c) (p)

#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */

/**
+ * rcu_access_pointer - fetch RCU pointer with no dereferencing
+ *
+ * Return the value of the specified RCU-protected pointer, but omit the
+ * smp_read_barrier_depends() and keep the ACCESS_ONCE(). This is useful
+ * when the value of this pointer is accessed, but the pointer is not
+ * dereferenced, for example, when testing an RCU-protected pointer against
+ * NULL. This may also be used in cases where update-side locks prevent
+ * the value of the pointer from changing, but rcu_dereference_protected()
+ * is a lighter-weight primitive for this use case.
+ */
+#define rcu_access_pointer(p) ACCESS_ONCE(p)
+
+/**
* rcu_read_lock - mark the beginning of an RCU read-side critical section.
*
* When synchronize_rcu() is invoked on one CPU while other CPUs
diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
index 63fe254..03a7ea1 100644
--- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
+++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
@@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_scheduler_active);

#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC

+int debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void)
+{
+ return rcu_scheduler_active && debug_locks &&
+ current->lockdep_recursion == 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled);
+
/**
* rcu_read_lock_bh_held - might we be in RCU-bh read-side critical section?
*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/