[PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] rcu: direct algorithmic SRCU implementation
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Sun Feb 12 2012 - 21:10:10 EST
The current implementation of synchronize_srcu_expedited() can cause
severe OS jitter due to its use of synchronize_sched(), which in turn
invokes try_stop_cpus(), which causes each CPU to be sent an IPI.
This can result in severe performance degradation for real-time workloads
and especially for short-interation-length HPC workloads. Furthermore,
because only one instance of try_stop_cpus() can be making forward progress
at a given time, only one instance of synchronize_srcu_expedited() can
make forward progress at a time, even if they are all operating on
distinct srcu_struct structures.
This commit, inspired by an earlier implementation by Peter Zijlstra
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/31/211) and by further offline discussions,
takes a strictly algorithmic bits-in-memory approach. This has the
disadvantage of requiring one explicit memory-barrier instruction in
each of srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), but on the other hand
completely dispenses with OS jitter and furthermore allows SRCU to be
used freely by CPUs that RCU believes to be idle or offline.
The update-side implementation handles the single read-side memory
barrier by rechecking the per-CPU counters after summing them and
by running through the update-side state machine twice.
This implementation has passed moderate rcutorture testing on both 32-bit
x86 and 64-bit Power. A call_srcu() function will be present in a later
version of this patch.
Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
index d3d5fa5..a478c8e 100644
--- a/include/linux/srcu.h
+++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
@@ -31,13 +31,19 @@
#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
struct srcu_struct_array {
- int c[2];
+ unsigned long c[2];
};
+/* Bit definitions for field ->c above and ->snap below. */
+#define SRCU_USAGE_BITS 2
+#define SRCU_REF_MASK (ULONG_MAX >> SRCU_USAGE_BITS)
+#define SRCU_USAGE_COUNT (SRCU_REF_MASK + 1)
+
struct srcu_struct {
- int completed;
+ unsigned completed;
struct srcu_struct_array __percpu *per_cpu_ref;
struct mutex mutex;
+ unsigned long snap[NR_CPUS];
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
struct lockdep_map dep_map;
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
diff --git a/kernel/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcutorture.c
index e0fe148..3d99162 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutorture.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutorture.c
@@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ static int srcu_torture_stats(char *page)
cnt += sprintf(&page[cnt], "%s%s per-CPU(idx=%d):",
torture_type, TORTURE_FLAG, idx);
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
- cnt += sprintf(&page[cnt], " %d(%d,%d)", cpu,
+ cnt += sprintf(&page[cnt], " %d(%lu,%lu)", cpu,
per_cpu_ptr(srcu_ctl.per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[!idx],
per_cpu_ptr(srcu_ctl.per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[idx]);
}
diff --git a/kernel/srcu.c b/kernel/srcu.c
index ba35f3a..540671e 100644
--- a/kernel/srcu.c
+++ b/kernel/srcu.c
@@ -73,19 +73,102 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(init_srcu_struct);
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
/*
- * srcu_readers_active_idx -- returns approximate number of readers
- * active on the specified rank of per-CPU counters.
+ * Returns approximate number of readers active on the specified rank
+ * of per-CPU counters. Also snapshots each counter's value in the
+ * corresponding element of sp->snap[] for later use validating
+ * the sum.
*/
+static unsigned long srcu_readers_active_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
+{
+ int cpu;
+ unsigned long sum = 0;
+ unsigned long t;
-static int srcu_readers_active_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+ t = ACCESS_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[idx]);
+ sum += t;
+ sp->snap[cpu] = t;
+ }
+ return sum & SRCU_REF_MASK;
+}
+
+/*
+ * To be called from the update side after an index flip. Returns true
+ * if the modulo sum of the counters is stably zero, false if there is
+ * some possibility of non-zero.
+ */
+static bool srcu_readers_active_idx_check(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
{
int cpu;
- int sum;
- sum = 0;
+ /*
+ * Note that srcu_readers_active_idx() can incorrectly return
+ * zero even though there is a pre-existing reader throughout.
+ * To see this, suppose that task A is in a very long SRCU
+ * read-side critical section that started on CPU 0, and that
+ * no other reader exists, so that the modulo sum of the counters
+ * is equal to one. Then suppose that task B starts executing
+ * srcu_readers_active_idx(), summing up to CPU 1, and then that
+ * task C starts reading on CPU 0, so that its increment is not
+ * summed, but finishes reading on CPU 2, so that its decrement
+ * -is- summed. Then when task B completes its sum, it will
+ * incorrectly get zero, despite the fact that task A has been
+ * in its SRCU read-side critical section the whole time.
+ *
+ * We therefore do a validation step should srcu_readers_active_idx()
+ * return zero.
+ */
+ if (srcu_readers_active_idx(sp, idx) != 0)
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * Since the caller recently flipped ->completed, we can see at
+ * most one increment of each CPU's counter from this point
+ * forward. The reason for this is that the reader CPU must have
+ * fetched the index before srcu_readers_active_idx checked
+ * that CPU's counter, but not yet incremented its counter.
+ * Its eventual counter increment will follow the read in
+ * srcu_readers_active_idx(), and that increment is immediately
+ * followed by smp_mb() B. Because smp_mb() D is between
+ * the ->completed flip and srcu_readers_active_idx()'s read,
+ * that CPU's subsequent load of ->completed must see the new
+ * value, and therefore increment the counter in the other rank.
+ */
+ smp_mb(); /* A */
+
+ /*
+ * Now, we check the ->snap array that srcu_readers_active_idx()
+ * filled in from the per-CPU counter values. Since both
+ * __srcu_read_lock() and __srcu_read_unlock() increment the
+ * upper bits of the per-CPU counter, an increment/decrement
+ * pair will change the value of the counter. Since there is
+ * only one possible increment, the only way to wrap the counter
+ * is to have a huge number of counter decrements, which requires
+ * a huge number of tasks and huge SRCU read-side critical-section
+ * nesting levels, even on 32-bit systems.
+ *
+ * All of the ways of confusing the readings require that the scan
+ * in srcu_readers_active_idx() see the read-side task's decrement,
+ * but not its increment. However, between that decrement and
+ * increment are smb_mb() B and C. Either or both of these pair
+ * with smp_mb() A above to ensure that the scan below will see
+ * the read-side tasks's increment, thus noting a difference in
+ * the counter values between the two passes.
+ *
+ * Therefore, if srcu_readers_active_idx() returned zero, and
+ * none of the counters changed, we know that the zero was the
+ * correct sum.
+ *
+ * Of course, it is possible that a task might be delayed
+ * for a very long time in __srcu_read_lock() after fetching
+ * the index but before incrementing its counter. This
+ * possibility will be dealt with in __synchronize_srcu().
+ */
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
- sum += per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[idx];
- return sum;
+ if (sp->snap[cpu] !=
+ ACCESS_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[idx]))
+ return false; /* False zero reading! */
+ return true;
}
/**
@@ -131,10 +214,11 @@ int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
int idx;
preempt_disable();
- idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
- barrier(); /* ensure compiler looks -once- at sp->completed. */
- per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, smp_processor_id())->c[idx]++;
- srcu_barrier(); /* ensure compiler won't misorder critical section. */
+ idx = rcu_dereference_index_check(sp->completed,
+ rcu_read_lock_sched_held()) & 0x1;
+ ACCESS_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, smp_processor_id())->c[idx]) +=
+ SRCU_USAGE_COUNT + 1;
+ smp_mb(); /* B */ /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */
preempt_enable();
return idx;
}
@@ -149,8 +233,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock);
void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
{
preempt_disable();
- srcu_barrier(); /* ensure compiler won't misorder critical section. */
- per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, smp_processor_id())->c[idx]--;
+ smp_mb(); /* C */ /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */
+ ACCESS_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, smp_processor_id())->c[idx]) +=
+ SRCU_USAGE_COUNT - 1;
preempt_enable();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
@@ -163,12 +248,65 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
* we repeatedly block for 1-millisecond time periods. This approach
* has done well in testing, so there is no need for a config parameter.
*/
-#define SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY 10
+#define SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY 5
+
+/*
+ * Flip the readers' index by incrementing ->completed, then wait
+ * until there are no more readers using the counters referenced by
+ * the old index value. (Recall that the index is the bottom bit
+ * of ->completed.)
+ *
+ * Of course, it is possible that a reader might be delayed for the
+ * full duration of flip_idx_and_wait() between fetching the
+ * index and incrementing its counter. This possibility is handled
+ * by __synchronize_srcu() invoking flip_idx_and_wait() twice.
+ */
+static void flip_idx_and_wait(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool expedited)
+{
+ int idx;
+ int trycount = 0;
+
+ idx = sp->completed++ & 0x1;
+
+ /*
+ * If a reader fetches the index before the above increment,
+ * but increments its counter after srcu_readers_active_idx_check()
+ * sums it, then smp_mb() D will pair with __srcu_read_lock()'s
+ * smp_mb() B to ensure that the SRCU read-side critical section
+ * will see any updates that the current task performed before its
+ * call to synchronize_srcu(), or to synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
+ * as the case may be.
+ */
+ smp_mb(); /* D */
+
+ /*
+ * SRCU read-side critical sections are normally short, so wait
+ * a small amount of time before possibly blocking.
+ */
+ if (!srcu_readers_active_idx_check(sp, idx)) {
+ udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
+ while (!srcu_readers_active_idx_check(sp, idx)) {
+ if (expedited && ++ trycount < 10)
+ udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
+ else
+ schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * The following smp_mb() E pairs with srcu_read_unlock()'s
+ * smp_mb C to ensure that if srcu_readers_active_idx_check()
+ * sees srcu_read_unlock()'s counter decrement, then any
+ * of the current task's subsequent code will happen after
+ * that SRCU read-side critical section.
+ */
+ smp_mb(); /* E */
+}
/*
* Helper function for synchronize_srcu() and synchronize_srcu_expedited().
*/
-static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, void (*sync_func)(void))
+static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool expedited)
{
int idx;
@@ -178,90 +316,51 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, void (*sync_func)(void))
!lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
"Illegal synchronize_srcu() in same-type SRCU (or RCU) read-side critical section");
- idx = sp->completed;
+ idx = ACCESS_ONCE(sp->completed);
mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
/*
* Check to see if someone else did the work for us while we were
- * waiting to acquire the lock. We need -two- advances of
+ * waiting to acquire the lock. We need -three- advances of
* the counter, not just one. If there was but one, we might have
* shown up -after- our helper's first synchronize_sched(), thus
* having failed to prevent CPU-reordering races with concurrent
- * srcu_read_unlock()s on other CPUs (see comment below). So we
- * either (1) wait for two or (2) supply the second ourselves.
+ * srcu_read_unlock()s on other CPUs (see comment below). If there
+ * was only two, we are guaranteed to have waited through only one
+ * full index-flip phase. So we either (1) wait for three or
+ * (2) supply the additional ones we need.
*/
- if ((sp->completed - idx) >= 2) {
+ if (sp->completed == idx + 2)
+ idx = 1;
+ else if (sp->completed == idx + 3) {
mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
return;
- }
-
- sync_func(); /* Force memory barrier on all CPUs. */
+ } else
+ idx = 0;
/*
- * The preceding synchronize_sched() ensures that any CPU that
- * sees the new value of sp->completed will also see any preceding
- * changes to data structures made by this CPU. This prevents
- * some other CPU from reordering the accesses in its SRCU
- * read-side critical section to precede the corresponding
- * srcu_read_lock() -- ensuring that such references will in
- * fact be protected.
+ * If there were no helpers, then we need to do two flips of
+ * the index. The first flip is required if there are any
+ * outstanding SRCU readers even if there are no new readers
+ * running concurrently with the first counter flip.
*
- * So it is now safe to do the flip.
- */
-
- idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
- sp->completed++;
-
- sync_func(); /* Force memory barrier on all CPUs. */
-
- /*
- * At this point, because of the preceding synchronize_sched(),
- * all srcu_read_lock() calls using the old counters have completed.
- * Their corresponding critical sections might well be still
- * executing, but the srcu_read_lock() primitives themselves
- * will have finished executing. We initially give readers
- * an arbitrarily chosen 10 microseconds to get out of their
- * SRCU read-side critical sections, then loop waiting 1/HZ
- * seconds per iteration. The 10-microsecond value has done
- * very well in testing.
- */
-
- if (srcu_readers_active_idx(sp, idx))
- udelay(SYNCHRONIZE_SRCU_READER_DELAY);
- while (srcu_readers_active_idx(sp, idx))
- schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
-
- sync_func(); /* Force memory barrier on all CPUs. */
-
- /*
- * The preceding synchronize_sched() forces all srcu_read_unlock()
- * primitives that were executing concurrently with the preceding
- * for_each_possible_cpu() loop to have completed by this point.
- * More importantly, it also forces the corresponding SRCU read-side
- * critical sections to have also completed, and the corresponding
- * references to SRCU-protected data items to be dropped.
+ * The second flip is required when a new reader picks up
+ * the old value of the index, but does not increment its
+ * counter until after its counters is summed/rechecked by
+ * srcu_readers_active_idx_check(). In this case, the current SRCU
+ * grace period would be OK because the SRCU read-side critical
+ * section started after this SRCU grace period started, so the
+ * grace period is not required to wait for the reader.
*
- * Note:
- *
- * Despite what you might think at first glance, the
- * preceding synchronize_sched() -must- be within the
- * critical section ended by the following mutex_unlock().
- * Otherwise, a task taking the early exit can race
- * with a srcu_read_unlock(), which might have executed
- * just before the preceding srcu_readers_active() check,
- * and whose CPU might have reordered the srcu_read_unlock()
- * with the preceding critical section. In this case, there
- * is nothing preventing the synchronize_sched() task that is
- * taking the early exit from freeing a data structure that
- * is still being referenced (out of order) by the task
- * doing the srcu_read_unlock().
- *
- * Alternatively, the comparison with "2" on the early exit
- * could be changed to "3", but this increases synchronize_srcu()
- * latency for bulk loads. So the current code is preferred.
+ * However, the next SRCU grace period would be waiting for the
+ * other set of counters to go to zero, and therefore would not
+ * wait for the reader, which would be very bad. To avoid this
+ * bad scenario, we flip and wait twice, clearing out both sets
+ * of counters.
*/
-
+ for (; idx < 2; idx++)
+ flip_idx_and_wait(sp, expedited);
mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
}
@@ -281,7 +380,7 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, void (*sync_func)(void))
*/
void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp)
{
- __synchronize_srcu(sp, synchronize_sched);
+ __synchronize_srcu(sp, 0);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu);
@@ -289,18 +388,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu);
* synchronize_srcu_expedited - Brute-force SRCU grace period
* @sp: srcu_struct with which to synchronize.
*
- * Wait for an SRCU grace period to elapse, but use a "big hammer"
- * approach to force the grace period to end quickly. This consumes
- * significant time on all CPUs and is unfriendly to real-time workloads,
- * so is thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code. In fact,
- * if you are using synchronize_srcu_expedited() in a loop, please
- * restructure your code to batch your updates, and then use a single
- * synchronize_srcu() instead.
+ * Wait for an SRCU grace period to elapse, but be more aggressive about
+ * spinning rather than blocking when waiting.
*
* Note that it is illegal to call this function while holding any lock
- * that is acquired by a CPU-hotplug notifier. And yes, it is also illegal
- * to call this function from a CPU-hotplug notifier. Failing to observe
- * these restriction will result in deadlock. It is also illegal to call
+ * that is acquired by a CPU-hotplug notifier. It is also illegal to call
* synchronize_srcu_expedited() from the corresponding SRCU read-side
* critical section; doing so will result in deadlock. However, it is
* perfectly legal to call synchronize_srcu_expedited() on one srcu_struct
@@ -309,7 +401,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu);
*/
void synchronize_srcu_expedited(struct srcu_struct *sp)
{
- __synchronize_srcu(sp, synchronize_sched_expedited);
+ __synchronize_srcu(sp, 1);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu_expedited);
--
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/