mirror of
https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git
synced 2024-12-30 16:13:54 +08:00
Merge branch 'core-rcu-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip
* 'core-rcu-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip: smp: Document transitivity for memory barriers. rcu: add comment saying why DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD depends on PREEMPT. rcupdate: remove dead code rcu: add documentation saying which RCU flavor to choose rcutorture: Get rid of duplicate sched.h include rcu: call __rcu_read_unlock() in exit_rcu for tiny RCU
This commit is contained in:
commit
016aa2ed1c
@ -849,6 +849,37 @@ All: lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access
|
||||
See the comment headers in the source code (or the docbook generated
|
||||
from them) for more information.
|
||||
|
||||
However, given that there are no fewer than four families of RCU APIs
|
||||
in the Linux kernel, how do you choose which one to use? The following
|
||||
list can be helpful:
|
||||
|
||||
a. Will readers need to block? If so, you need SRCU.
|
||||
|
||||
b. What about the -rt patchset? If readers would need to block
|
||||
in an non-rt kernel, you need SRCU. If readers would block
|
||||
in a -rt kernel, but not in a non-rt kernel, SRCU is not
|
||||
necessary.
|
||||
|
||||
c. Do you need to treat NMI handlers, hardirq handlers,
|
||||
and code segments with preemption disabled (whether
|
||||
via preempt_disable(), local_irq_save(), local_bh_disable(),
|
||||
or some other mechanism) as if they were explicit RCU readers?
|
||||
If so, you need RCU-sched.
|
||||
|
||||
d. Do you need RCU grace periods to complete even in the face
|
||||
of softirq monopolization of one or more of the CPUs? For
|
||||
example, is your code subject to network-based denial-of-service
|
||||
attacks? If so, you need RCU-bh.
|
||||
|
||||
e. Is your workload too update-intensive for normal use of
|
||||
RCU, but inappropriate for other synchronization mechanisms?
|
||||
If so, consider SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. But please be careful!
|
||||
|
||||
f. Otherwise, use RCU.
|
||||
|
||||
Of course, this all assumes that you have determined that RCU is in fact
|
||||
the right tool for your job.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
8. ANSWERS TO QUICK QUIZZES
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ Contents:
|
||||
- SMP barrier pairing.
|
||||
- Examples of memory barrier sequences.
|
||||
- Read memory barriers vs load speculation.
|
||||
- Transitivity
|
||||
|
||||
(*) Explicit kernel barriers.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -959,6 +960,63 @@ the speculation will be cancelled and the value reloaded:
|
||||
retrieved : : +-------+
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
TRANSITIVITY
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
Transitivity is a deeply intuitive notion about ordering that is not
|
||||
always provided by real computer systems. The following example
|
||||
demonstrates transitivity (also called "cumulativity"):
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
|
||||
======================= ======================= =======================
|
||||
{ X = 0, Y = 0 }
|
||||
STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1
|
||||
<general barrier> <general barrier>
|
||||
LOAD Y LOAD X
|
||||
|
||||
Suppose that CPU 2's load from X returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0.
|
||||
This indicates that CPU 2's load from X in some sense follows CPU 1's
|
||||
store to X and that CPU 2's load from Y in some sense preceded CPU 3's
|
||||
store to Y. The question is then "Can CPU 3's load from X return 0?"
|
||||
|
||||
Because CPU 2's load from X in some sense came after CPU 1's store, it
|
||||
is natural to expect that CPU 3's load from X must therefore return 1.
|
||||
This expectation is an example of transitivity: if a load executing on
|
||||
CPU A follows a load from the same variable executing on CPU B, then
|
||||
CPU A's load must either return the same value that CPU B's load did,
|
||||
or must return some later value.
|
||||
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, use of general memory barriers guarantees
|
||||
transitivity. Therefore, in the above example, if CPU 2's load from X
|
||||
returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0, then CPU 3's load from X must
|
||||
also return 1.
|
||||
|
||||
However, transitivity is -not- guaranteed for read or write barriers.
|
||||
For example, suppose that CPU 2's general barrier in the above example
|
||||
is changed to a read barrier as shown below:
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
|
||||
======================= ======================= =======================
|
||||
{ X = 0, Y = 0 }
|
||||
STORE X=1 LOAD X STORE Y=1
|
||||
<read barrier> <general barrier>
|
||||
LOAD Y LOAD X
|
||||
|
||||
This substitution destroys transitivity: in this example, it is perfectly
|
||||
legal for CPU 2's load from X to return 1, its load from Y to return 0,
|
||||
and CPU 3's load from X to return 0.
|
||||
|
||||
The key point is that although CPU 2's read barrier orders its pair
|
||||
of loads, it does not guarantee to order CPU 1's store. Therefore, if
|
||||
this example runs on a system where CPUs 1 and 2 share a store buffer
|
||||
or a level of cache, CPU 2 might have early access to CPU 1's writes.
|
||||
General barriers are therefore required to ensure that all CPUs agree
|
||||
on the combined order of CPU 1's and CPU 2's accesses.
|
||||
|
||||
To reiterate, if your code requires transitivity, use general barriers
|
||||
throughout.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
========================
|
||||
EXPLICIT KERNEL BARRIERS
|
||||
========================
|
||||
|
@ -214,11 +214,12 @@ static int rcuhead_fixup_free(void *addr, enum debug_obj_state state)
|
||||
* Ensure that queued callbacks are all executed.
|
||||
* If we detect that we are nested in a RCU read-side critical
|
||||
* section, we should simply fail, otherwise we would deadlock.
|
||||
* Note that the machinery to reliably determine whether
|
||||
* or not we are in an RCU read-side critical section
|
||||
* exists only in the preemptible RCU implementations
|
||||
* (TINY_PREEMPT_RCU and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU), which is why
|
||||
* DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD is disallowed if !PREEMPT.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
|
||||
WARN_ON(1);
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
#else
|
||||
if (rcu_preempt_depth() != 0 || preempt_count() != 0 ||
|
||||
irqs_disabled()) {
|
||||
WARN_ON(1);
|
||||
@ -229,7 +230,6 @@ static int rcuhead_fixup_free(void *addr, enum debug_obj_state state)
|
||||
rcu_barrier_bh();
|
||||
debug_object_free(head, &rcuhead_debug_descr);
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ void exit_rcu(void)
|
||||
if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 1;
|
||||
rcu_read_unlock();
|
||||
__rcu_read_unlock();
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU */
|
||||
|
@ -47,7 +47,6 @@
|
||||
#include <linux/srcu.h>
|
||||
#include <linux/slab.h>
|
||||
#include <asm/byteorder.h>
|
||||
#include <linux/sched.h>
|
||||
|
||||
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
|
||||
MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> and "
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user