From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/23] rcu: Break up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:11:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120902021121.GF5713@leaf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1346350718-30937-6-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:18:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Then rcu_gp_kthread() function is too large and furthermore needs to
> have the force_quiescent_state() code pulled in. This commit therefore
> breaks up rcu_gp_kthread() into rcu_gp_init() and rcu_gp_cleanup().
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> kernel/rcutree.c | 260 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 122 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 84a6f55..c2c036f 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -1040,160 +1040,176 @@ rcu_start_gp_per_cpu(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_dat
> }
>
> /*
> - * Body of kthread that handles grace periods.
> + * Initialize a new grace period.
> */
> -static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> +static int rcu_gp_init(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - unsigned long gp_duration;
> struct rcu_data *rdp;
> - struct rcu_node *rnp;
> - struct rcu_state *rsp = arg;
> + struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
>
> - for (;;) {
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + rsp->gp_flags = 0;
>
> - /* Handle grace-period start. */
> - rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> - for (;;) {
> - wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq, rsp->gp_flags);
> - if (rsp->gp_flags)
> - break;
> - flush_signals(current);
> - }
> + if (rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) {
> + /* Grace period already in progress, don't start another. */
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (rsp->fqs_active) {
> + /*
> + * We need a grace period, but force_quiescent_state()
> + * is running. Tell it to start one on our behalf.
> + */
> + rsp->fqs_need_gp = 1;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + /* Advance to a new grace period and initialize state. */
> + rsp->gpnum++;
> + trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, rsp->gpnum, "start");
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(rsp->fqs_state == RCU_GP_INIT);
> + rsp->fqs_state = RCU_GP_INIT; /* Stop force_quiescent_state. */
> + rsp->jiffies_force_qs = jiffies + RCU_JIFFIES_TILL_FORCE_QS;
> + record_gp_stall_check_time(rsp);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> +
> + /* Exclude any concurrent CPU-hotplug operations. */
> + get_online_cpus();
> +
> + /*
> + * Set the quiescent-state-needed bits in all the rcu_node
> + * structures for all currently online CPUs in breadth-first order,
> + * starting from the root rcu_node structure, relying on the layout
> + * of the tree within the rsp->node[] array. Note that other CPUs
> + * access only the leaves of the hierarchy, thus seeing that no
> + * grace period is in progress, at least until the corresponding
> + * leaf node has been initialized. In addition, we have excluded
> + * CPU-hotplug operations.
> + *
> + * The grace period cannot complete until the initialization
> + * process finishes, because this kthread handles both.
> + */
> + rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - rsp->gp_flags = 0;
> rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
> + rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks(rnp);
> + rnp->qsmask = rnp->qsmaskinit;
> + rnp->gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> + rnp->completed = rsp->completed;
> + if (rnp == rdp->mynode)
> + rcu_start_gp_per_cpu(rsp, rnp, rdp);
> + rcu_preempt_boost_start_gp(rnp);
> + trace_rcu_grace_period_init(rsp->name, rnp->gpnum,
> + rnp->level, rnp->grplo,
> + rnp->grphi, rnp->qsmask);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + cond_resched();
> + }
>
> - if (rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) {
> - /*
> - * A grace period is already in progress, so
> - * don't start another one.
> - */
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - cond_resched();
> - continue;
> - }
> + rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + /* force_quiescent_state() now OK. */
> + rsp->fqs_state = RCU_SIGNAL_INIT;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + put_online_cpus();
>
> - if (rsp->fqs_active) {
> - /*
> - * We need a grace period, but force_quiescent_state()
> - * is running. Tell it to start one on our behalf.
> - */
> - rsp->fqs_need_gp = 1;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - cond_resched();
> - continue;
> - }
> + return 1;
> +}
>
> - /* Advance to a new grace period and initialize state. */
> - rsp->gpnum++;
> - trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, rsp->gpnum, "start");
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(rsp->fqs_state == RCU_GP_INIT);
> - rsp->fqs_state = RCU_GP_INIT; /* Stop force_quiescent_state. */
> - rsp->jiffies_force_qs = jiffies + RCU_JIFFIES_TILL_FORCE_QS;
> - record_gp_stall_check_time(rsp);
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> +/*
> + * Clean up after the old grace period.
> + */
> +static int rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned long gp_duration;
> + struct rcu_data *rdp;
> + struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
>
> - /* Exclude any concurrent CPU-hotplug operations. */
> - get_online_cpus();
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + gp_duration = jiffies - rsp->gp_start;
> + if (gp_duration > rsp->gp_max)
> + rsp->gp_max = gp_duration;
> +
> + /*
> + * We know the grace period is complete, but to everyone else
> + * it appears to still be ongoing. But it is also the case
> + * that to everyone else it looks like there is nothing that
> + * they can do to advance the grace period. It is therefore
> + * safe for us to drop the lock in order to mark the grace
> + * period as completed in all of the rcu_node structures.
> + *
> + * But if this CPU needs another grace period, it will take
> + * care of this while initializing the next grace period.
> + * We use RCU_WAIT_TAIL instead of the usual RCU_DONE_TAIL
> + * because the callbacks have not yet been advanced: Those
> + * callbacks are waiting on the grace period that just now
> + * completed.
> + */
> + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
> + if (*rdp->nxttail[RCU_WAIT_TAIL] == NULL) {
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>
> /*
> - * Set the quiescent-state-needed bits in all the rcu_node
> - * structures for all currently online CPUs in breadth-first
> - * order, starting from the root rcu_node structure.
> - * This operation relies on the layout of the hierarchy
> - * within the rsp->node[] array. Note that other CPUs will
> - * access only the leaves of the hierarchy, which still
> - * indicate that no grace period is in progress, at least
> - * until the corresponding leaf node has been initialized.
> - * In addition, we have excluded CPU-hotplug operations.
> - *
> - * Note that the grace period cannot complete until
> - * we finish the initialization process, as there will
> - * be at least one qsmask bit set in the root node until
> - * that time, namely the one corresponding to this CPU,
> - * due to the fact that we have irqs disabled.
> + * Propagate new ->completed value to rcu_node
> + * structures so that other CPUs don't have to
> + * wait until the start of the next grace period
> + * to process their callbacks.
> */
> rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks(rnp);
> - rnp->qsmask = rnp->qsmaskinit;
> - rnp->gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> - rnp->completed = rsp->completed;
> - if (rnp == rdp->mynode)
> - rcu_start_gp_per_cpu(rsp, rnp, rdp);
> - rcu_preempt_boost_start_gp(rnp);
> - trace_rcu_grace_period_init(rsp->name, rnp->gpnum,
> - rnp->level, rnp->grplo,
> - rnp->grphi, rnp->qsmask);
> + rnp->completed = rsp->gpnum;
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> cond_resched();
> }
> -
> rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - /* force_quiescent_state() now OK. */
> - rsp->fqs_state = RCU_SIGNAL_INIT;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - put_online_cpus();
> + }
> +
> + rsp->completed = rsp->gpnum; /* Declare grace period done. */
> + trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, rsp->completed, "end");
> + rsp->fqs_state = RCU_GP_IDLE;
> + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
> + if (cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp))
> + rsp->gp_flags = 1;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Body of kthread that handles grace periods.
> + */
> +static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> +{
> + struct rcu_state *rsp = arg;
> + struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> +
> + for (;;) {
> +
> + /* Handle grace-period start. */
> + for (;;) {
> + wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq, rsp->gp_flags);
> + if (rsp->gp_flags && rcu_gp_init(rsp))
> + break;
> + cond_resched();
> + flush_signals(current);
> + }
>
> /* Handle grace-period end. */
> - rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> for (;;) {
> wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq,
> !ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) &&
> !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp));
> if (!ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) &&
> - !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp))
> + !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp) &&
> + rcu_gp_cleanup(rsp))
> break;
> + cond_resched();
> flush_signals(current);
> }
> -
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - gp_duration = jiffies - rsp->gp_start;
> - if (gp_duration > rsp->gp_max)
> - rsp->gp_max = gp_duration;
> -
> - /*
> - * We know the grace period is complete, but to everyone else
> - * it appears to still be ongoing. But it is also the case
> - * that to everyone else it looks like there is nothing that
> - * they can do to advance the grace period. It is therefore
> - * safe for us to drop the lock in order to mark the grace
> - * period as completed in all of the rcu_node structures.
> - *
> - * But if this CPU needs another grace period, it will take
> - * care of this while initializing the next grace period.
> - * We use RCU_WAIT_TAIL instead of the usual RCU_DONE_TAIL
> - * because the callbacks have not yet been advanced: Those
> - * callbacks are waiting on the grace period that just now
> - * completed.
> - */
> - if (*rdp->nxttail[RCU_WAIT_TAIL] == NULL) {
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> -
> - /*
> - * Propagate new ->completed value to rcu_node
> - * structures so that other CPUs don't have to
> - * wait until the start of the next grace period
> - * to process their callbacks.
> - */
> - rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - rnp->completed = rsp->gpnum;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - cond_resched();
> - }
> - rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> - }
> -
> - rsp->completed = rsp->gpnum; /* Declare grace period done. */
> - trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, rsp->completed, "end");
> - rsp->fqs_state = RCU_GP_IDLE;
> - if (cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp))
> - rsp->gp_flags = 1;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> }
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 1.7.8
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-02 2:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-30 18:18 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/23] Improvements to RT response on big systems and expedited functions Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period initialization into a kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/23] rcu: Allow RCU grace-period initialization to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 1:09 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-05 1:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period cleanup into kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 1:22 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 13:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/23] rcu: Allow RCU grace-period cleanup to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 1:36 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/23] rcu: Prevent offline CPUs from executing RCU core code Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 1:45 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/23] rcu: Break up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 2:11 ` Josh Triplett [this message]
2012-09-06 13:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 18:49 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 19:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 20:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/23] rcu: Provide OOM handler to motivate lazy RCU callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 2:13 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-03 9:08 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-05 17:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 13:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-09-06 17:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 17:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/23] rcu: Segregate rcu_state fields to improve cache locality Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 2:51 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/23] rcu: Move quiescent-state forcing into kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/23] rcu: Allow RCU quiescent-state forcing to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 5:23 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/23] rcu: Adjust debugfs tracing for kthread-based quiescent-state forcing Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 6:05 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/23] rcu: Prevent force_quiescent_state() memory contention Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 10:47 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/23] rcu: Control grace-period duration from sysfs Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:30 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-03 9:31 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 18:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/23] rcu: Remove now-unused rcu_state fields Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:31 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 18:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/23] rcu: Make rcutree module parameters visible in sysfs Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:32 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/23] rcu: Prevent initialization-time quiescent-state race Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:37 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-05 18:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-05 18:55 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-05 19:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 14:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 16:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/23] rcu: Fix day-zero grace-period initialization/cleanup race Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:39 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/23] rcu: Add random PROVE_RCU_DELAY to grace-period initialization Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:41 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 18:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/23] rcu: Adjust for unconditional ->completed assignment Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:42 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/23] rcu: Remove callback acceleration from grace-period initialization Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:42 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/23] rcu: Eliminate signed overflow in synchronize_rcu_expedited() Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:43 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 22/23] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu_expedited() latency Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:46 ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/23] rcu: Simplify quiescent-state detection Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:56 ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 21:18 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-09-06 21:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 1:04 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period initialization into a kthread Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-20 18:47 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/23] v2 Improvements to RT response on big systems and expedited functions Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-20 18:47 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period initialization into a kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-20 18:48 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/23] rcu: Break up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120902021121.GF5713@leaf \
--to=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sbw@mit.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).