Re: [PATCH 2/2][RT] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radixtree lockless

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 14:18 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:11:34 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 24 July 2008 20:50, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > > From: Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:56:41 +0200
> > > Subject: [PATCH][RT] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree
> > > lockless
> > >
> > >   The radix tree used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse
> > > mapping (currently only the XICS found on pSeries) have a complex locking
> > > scheme dating back to before the advent of the concurrent radix tree on
> > > preempt-rt.
> > >
> > >   Take advantage of this and of the fact that the items of the tree are
> > > pointers to a static array (irq_map) elements which can never go under us
> > > to simplify the locking.
> > >
> > >   Concurrency between readers and writers are handled by the intrinsic
> > > properties of the concurrent radix tree. Concurrency between the tree
> > > initialization which is done asynchronously with readers and writers access
> > > is handled via an atomic variable (revmap_trees_allocated) set when the
> > > tree has been initialized and checked before any reader or writer access
> > > just like we used to check for tree.gfp_mask != 0 before.
> > 
> > Hmm, RCU radix tree is in mainline too for quite a while. I thought
> > Ben had already converted this code over ages ago...
> 
>   Mainline does not have the concurrent radix tree which this patch
> is based on, but maybe it's overkill and the RCU radix tree is enough.
> Not sure, will have to think about it a bit more.

Should be. The model of the concurrent radix tree can be mapped to
spinlock + rcu radix tree.

So instead of:

> ï+               DEFINE_RADIX_TREE_CONTEXT(ctx, tree);
> +               radix_tree_lock(&ctx);
> +               radix_tree_insert(ctx.tree, hwirq, &irq_map[virq]);
> +               radix_tree_unlock(&ctx);


you then write:

	spin_lock(&host->revmap_data.tree_lock);
	radix_tree_insert(&host->revmap_data.tree, hwirq, &irq_map[virq]);
	spin_unlock(&host->revmap_data.tree_lock);


The only advantage of the concurrent radix tree over this model is that
it can potentially do multiple modification operations at the same time.

Still, cool that you used it ;-)

--
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/