Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:02:04 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] Make call_srcu() available during very early boot |
| |
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:06:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:49:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 09:24:48 -0700 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Event tracing is moving to SRCU in order to take advantage of the fact > > > that SRCU may be safely used from idle and even offline CPUs. However, > > > event tracing can invoke call_srcu() very early in the boot process, > > > even before workqueue_init_early() is invoked (let alone rcu_init()). > > > Therefore, call_srcu()'s attempts to queue work fail miserably. > > > > > > This commit therefore detects this situation, and refrains from attempting > > > to queue work before rcu_init() time, but does everything else that it > > > would have done, and in addition, adds the srcu_struct to a global list. > > > The rcu_init() function now invokes a new srcu_init() function, which > > > is empty if CONFIG_SRCU=n. Otherwise, srcu_init() queues work for > > > each srcu_struct on the list. This all happens early enough in boot > > > that there is but a single CPU with interrupts disabled, which allows > > > synchronization to be dispensed with. > > > > > > Of course, the queued work won't actually be invoked until after > > > workqueue_init() is invoked, which happens shortly after the scheduler > > > is up and running. This means that although call_srcu() may be invoked > > > any time after per-CPU variables have been set up, there is still a very > > > narrow window when synchronize_srcu() won't work, and this window > > > extends from the time that the scheduler starts until the time that > > > workqueue_init() returns. This can be fixed in a manner similar to > > > the fix for synchronize_rcu_expedited() and friends, but until someone > > > actually needs to use synchronize_srcu() during this window, this fix > > > is added churn for no benefit. > > > > > > Finally, note that Tree SRCU's new srcu_init() function invokes > > > queue_work() rather than the queue_delayed_work() function that is invoked > > > post-boot. The reason is that queue_delayed_work() will (as you would > > > expect) post a timer, and timers have not yet been initialized. So use > > > of queue_delayed_work() avoids the complaints about use of uninitialized > > > > You mean "So use of queue_work() avoids .." ? > > Indeed I do! Fixed. > > > > spinlocks that would otherwise result. Besides, delay is in any case > > > provide by the aforementioned fact that the queued work won't actually > > > be invoked until after the scheduler is up and running. > > > > > > Requested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/srcutiny.h b/include/linux/srcutiny.h > > > index f41d2fb09f87..2b5c0822e683 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/srcutiny.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/srcutiny.h > > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ struct srcu_struct { > > > struct rcu_head *srcu_cb_head; /* Pending callbacks: Head. */ > > > struct rcu_head **srcu_cb_tail; /* Pending callbacks: Tail. */ > > > struct work_struct srcu_work; /* For driving grace periods. */ > > > + struct list_head srcu_boot_entry; /* Early-boot callbacks. */ > > > > I really don't like increasing the size of a structure for a field that > > is hardly ever used. > > > > Is there a way we could make a union, or reuse one of the other fields, > > as we know that synchronize_srcu() can't be used yet (and if it is, > > either warn, or just make it a nop). And when we call srcu_init() and > > remove the srcu_struct from the list, we can then initialize whatever > > we used as the temporary boot up list field. > > I will take a look. If nothing else, I could union it with the > struct work_struct, since it cannot be used that early anyway. ;-)
Not so much!!! The problem is that the srcu_struct needs to be initialized differently depending on whether it is used before or after start_kernel()'s call to rcu_init(). Before, it needs to be initialized as a list_head, after as a work_struct. But the type of initialization is determined not by the time of initialization but rather by the time of first use. So it looks like reusing work_struct's list_head makes more sense.
> Or I could just use the work_struct that is already inside the struct > work_struct. Tejun, would you be OK with that?
I am creating a separate patch that eliminates the boot-time-only ->srcu_boot_entry field to allow the decisions to be made separately.
Thanx, Paul
> For whatever it is worth, synchronize_srcu() is perfectly legal way > early in boot, at least as early as call_srcu(). The reason is that > until the scheduler starts, synchronize_srcu() is a no-op. > > > srcu_init is called when we are still running only one CPU correct? > > Yes, single CPU interrupts disabled. > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC > > > struct lockdep_map dep_map; > > > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */ > > > @@ -48,6 +49,7 @@ void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp); > > > .srcu_wq = __SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(name.srcu_wq), \ > > > .srcu_cb_tail = &name.srcu_cb_head, \ > > > .srcu_work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(name.srcu_work, srcu_drive_gp), \ > > > + .srcu_boot_entry = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.srcu_boot_entry), \ > > > __SRCU_DEP_MAP_INIT(name) \ > > > } > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/srcutree.h b/include/linux/srcutree.h > > > index 745d4ca4dd50..86ad97111315 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/srcutree.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/srcutree.h > > > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ struct srcu_struct { > > > /* callback for the barrier */ > > > /* operation. */ > > > struct delayed_work work; > > > + struct list_head srcu_boot_entry; /* Early-boot callbacks. */ > > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC > > > struct lockdep_map dep_map; > > > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */ > > > @@ -105,12 +106,13 @@ struct srcu_struct { > > > #define SRCU_STATE_SCAN2 2 > > > > > > #define __SRCU_STRUCT_INIT(name, pcpu_name) \ > > > - { \ > > > - .sda = &pcpu_name, \ > > > - .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.lock), \ > > > - .srcu_gp_seq_needed = 0 - 1, \ > > > - __SRCU_DEP_MAP_INIT(name) \ > > > - } > > > +{ \ > > > + .sda = &pcpu_name, \ > > > + .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.lock), \ > > > + .srcu_gp_seq_needed = 0 - 1, \ > > > > Interesting initialization of -1. This was there before, but still > > interesting none the less. > > If I recall correctly, this subterfuge suppresses compiler complaints > about initializing an unsigned long with a negative number. :-/ > > Thanx, Paul > > > > + .srcu_boot_entry = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.srcu_boot_entry), \ > > > + __SRCU_DEP_MAP_INIT(name) \ > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > -- Steve > >
| |