Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Mar 2018 22:19:50 +0100 | From | Andrea Parri <> | Subject | Re: Simplifying our RCU models |
| |
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:54:44AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:39:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But if we look at the bigger API picture: > > > > > > > > > > > > !PREEMPT_RCU PREEMPT_RCU=y > > > > > > rcu_read_lock(): atomic preemptible > > > > > > rcu_read_lock_sched(): atomic atomic > > > > > > srcu_read_lock(): preemptible preemptible > > > > > > > > > > > > Then we could maintain full read side API flexibility by making PREEMPT_RCU=y the > > > > > > only model, merging it with SRCU and using these main read side APIs: > > > > > > > > > > > > rcu_read_lock_preempt_disable(): atomic > > > > > > rcu_read_lock(): preemptible > > > > > > > > One issue with merging SRCU into rcu_read_lock() is the general blocking within > > > > SRCU readers. Once merged in, these guys block everyone. We should focus > > > > initially on the non-SRCU variants. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, Linus's suggestion of merging rcu_read_lock_sched() > > > > into rcu_read_lock() just might be feasible. If that really does pan > > > > out, we end up with the following: > > > > > > > > !PREEMPT PREEMPT=y > > > > rcu_read_lock(): atomic preemptible > > > > srcu_read_lock(): preemptible preemptible > > > > > > > > In this model, rcu_read_lock_sched() maps to preempt_disable() and (as > > > > you say above) rcu_read_lock_bh() maps to local_bh_disable(). The way > > > > this works is that in PREEMPT=y kernels, synchronize_rcu() waits not > > > > only for RCU read-side critical sections, but also for regions of code > > > > with preemption disabled. The main caveat seems to be that there be an > > > > assumed point of preemptibility between each interrupt and each softirq > > > > handler, which should be OK. > > > > > > > > There will be some adjustments required for lockdep-RCU, but that should > > > > be reasonably straightforward. > > > > > > > > Seem reasonable? > > > > > > Yes, that approach sounds very reasonable to me: it is similar to what we do on > > > the locking side as well, where we have 'atomic' variants (spinlocks/rwlocks) and > > > 'sleeping' variants (mutexes, rwsems, etc.). > > > > > > ( This means there will be more automatic coupling between BH and preempt critical > > > sections and RCU models not captured via explicit RCU-namespace APIs, but that > > > should be OK I think. ) > > > > Thus far, I have been unable to prove that it cannot work, which is about > > as good as it gets at this stage. So here is hoping! ;-) > > > > I will look at your later corrected message, but will gratefully accept > > your offer of help with the naming transition. > > Ah, and any thoughts on how best to get feedback from the various people > who would need to reprogram their fingers? Or is everyone already on > board with changing these various names?
Experienced should get there in a week (gcc help); newbies would (have to) rely on either on _properly updated_ documentation or weeks/months of code paging; scripts do the renaming. What am I missing?
Andrea
> > Thanx, Paul >
| |