Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:48:10 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/15] rcu: Increasing rcu_barrier() concurrency |
| |
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:31:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:06:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > > > > The traditional rcu_barrier() implementation has serialized all requests, > > regardless of RCU flavor, and also does not coalesce concurrent requests. > > In the past, this has been good and sufficient. > > > > However, systems are getting larger and use of rcu_barrier() has been > > increasing. This commit therefore introduces a counter-based scheme > > that allows _rcu_barrier() calls for the same flavor of RCU to take > > advantage of each others' work. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > kernel/rcutree.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > kernel/rcutree.h | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c > > index 93358d4..7c299d3 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c > > @@ -2291,13 +2291,32 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp) > > unsigned long flags; > > struct rcu_data *rdp; > > struct rcu_data rd; > > + unsigned long snap = ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->n_barrier_done); > > + unsigned long snap_done; > > > > init_rcu_head_on_stack(&rd.barrier_head); > > > > /* Take mutex to serialize concurrent rcu_barrier() requests. */ > > mutex_lock(&rsp->barrier_mutex); > > > > - smp_mb(); /* Prevent any prior operations from leaking in. */ > > + /* > > + * Ensure tht all prior references, including to ->n_barrier_done, > > + * are ordered before the _rcu_barrier() machinery. > > + */ > > + smp_mb(); /* See above block comment. */ > > If checkpatch complains about the lack of a comment to the right of a > barrier even when the barrier has a comment directly above it, that > seems like a bug in checkpatch that needs fixing, to prevent developers > from having to add noise like "See above block comment.". :)
;-)
> Also: what type of barriers do mutex_lock and mutex_unlock imply? I > assume they imply some weaker barrier than smp_mb, but I'd still assume > they imply *some* barrier.
mutex_lock() prevents code from leaving the critical section, but is not guaranteed to prevent code from entering the critical section.
> > + /* Recheck ->n_barrier_done to see if others did our work for us. */ > > + snap_done = ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->n_barrier_done); > > + if (ULONG_CMP_GE(snap_done, ((snap + 1) & ~0x1) + 2)) { > > This calculation seems sufficiently clever that it merits an explanatory > comment.
I will see what I can come up with.
> > + smp_mb(); > > + mutex_unlock(&rsp->barrier_mutex); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + /* Increment ->n_barrier_done to avoid duplicate work. */ > > + ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->n_barrier_done)++; > > Interesting dissonance here: the use of ACCESS_ONCE with ++ implies > exactly two accesses, rather than exactly one. What makes it safe to > not use atomic_inc here, but not safe to drop the ACCESS_ONCE? > Potential use of a cached value read earlier in the function?
Or, worse yet, the compiler speculating the increment and then backing it out if the early-exit path is taken.
Thanx, Paul
| |