linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use rcu_read_lock_sched
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:16:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121024161638.GA2465@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210221937550.25995@file.rdu.redhat.com>

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:39:16PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Use rcu_read_lock_sched / rcu_read_unlock_sched / synchronize_sched
> instead of rcu_read_lock / rcu_read_unlock / synchronize_rcu.
> 
> This is an optimization. The RCU-protected region is very small, so
> there will be no latency problems if we disable preempt in this region.
> 
> So we use rcu_read_lock_sched / rcu_read_unlock_sched that translates
> to preempt_disable / preempt_disable. It is smaller (and supposedly
> faster) than preemptible rcu_read_lock / rcu_read_unlock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>

OK, as promised/threatened, I finally got a chance to take a closer look.

The light_mb() and heavy_mb() definitions aren't doing much for me,
the code would be cleared with them expanded inline.  And while the
approach of pairing barrier() with synchronize_sched() is interesting,
it would be simpler to rely on RCU's properties.  The key point is that
if RCU cannot prove that a given RCU-sched read-side critical section
is seen by all CPUs to have started after a given synchronize_sched(),
then that synchronize_sched() must wait for that RCU-sched read-side
critical section to complete.

This means, as discussed earlier, that there will be a memory barrier
somewhere following the end of that RCU-sched read-side critical section,
and that this memory barrier executes before the completion of the
synchronize_sched().

So I suggest something like the following (untested!) implementation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

struct percpu_rw_semaphore {
	unsigned __percpu *counters;
	bool locked;
	struct mutex mtx;
	wait_queue_head_t wq;
};

static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	rcu_read_lock_sched();
	if (unlikely(p->locked)) {
		rcu_read_unlock_sched();

		/*
		 * There might (or might not) be a writer.  Acquire &p->mtx,
		 * it is always safe (if a bit slow) to do so.
		 */
		mutex_lock(&p->mtx);
		this_cpu_inc(*p->counters);
		mutex_unlock(&p->mtx);
		return;
	}

	/* No writer, proceed locklessly. */
	this_cpu_inc(*p->counters);
	rcu_read_unlock_sched();
}

static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	/*
	 * Decrement our count, but protected by RCU-sched so that
	 * the writer can force proper serialization.
	 */
	rcu_read_lock_sched();
	this_cpu_dec(*p->counters);
	rcu_read_unlock_sched();
}

static inline unsigned __percpu_count(unsigned __percpu *counters)
{
	unsigned total = 0;
	int cpu;

	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
		total += ACCESS_ONCE(*per_cpu_ptr(counters, cpu));

	return total;
}

static inline void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	mutex_lock(&p->mtx);

	/* Wait for a previous writer, if necessary. */
	wait_event(p->wq, !ACCESS_ONCE(p->locked));

	/* Force the readers to acquire the lock when manipulating counts. */
	ACCESS_ONCE(p->locked) = true;

	/* Wait for all pre-existing readers' checks of ->locked to finish. */
	synchronize_sched();
	/*
	 * At this point, all percpu_down_read() invocations will
	 * acquire p->mtx.
	 */

	/*
	 * Wait for all pre-existing readers to complete their
	 * percpu_up_read() calls.  Because ->locked is set and
	 * because we hold ->mtx, there cannot be any new readers.
	 * ->counters will therefore monotonically decrement to zero.
	 */
	while (__percpu_count(p->counters))
		msleep(1);

	/*
	 * Invoke synchronize_sched() in order to force the last
	 * caller of percpu_up_read() to exit its RCU-sched read-side
	 * critical section.  On SMP systems, this also forces the CPU
	 * that invoked that percpu_up_read() to execute a full memory
	 * barrier between the time it exited the RCU-sched read-side
	 * critical section and the time that synchronize_sched() returns,
	 * so that the critical section begun by this invocation of
	 * percpu_down_write() will happen after the critical section
	 * ended by percpu_up_read().
	 */
	synchronize_sched();
}

static inline void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	/* Allow others to proceed, but not yet locklessly. */
	mutex_unlock(&p->mtx);

	/*
	 * Ensure that all calls to percpu_down_read() that did not
	 * start unambiguously after the above mutex_unlock() still
	 * acquire the lock, forcing their critical sections to be
	 * serialized with the one terminated by this call to
	 * percpu_up_write().
	 */
	synchronize_sched();

	/* Now it is safe to allow readers to proceed locklessly. */
	ACCESS_ONCE(p->locked) = false;

	/*
	 * If there is another writer waiting, wake it up.  Note that
	 * p->mtx properly serializes its critical section with the
	 * critical section terminated by this call to percpu_up_write().
	 */
	wake_up(&p->wq);
}

static inline int percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	p->counters = alloc_percpu(unsigned);
	if (unlikely(!p->counters))
		return -ENOMEM;
	p->locked = false;
	mutex_init(&p->mtx);
	init_waitqueue_head(&p->wq);
	return 0;
}

static inline void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	free_percpu(p->counters);
	p->counters = NULL; /* catch use after free bugs */
}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it would be nice to get rid of the extra synchronize_sched().
One way to do this is to use SRCU, which allows blocking operations in
its read-side critical sections (though also increasing read-side overhead
a bit, and also untested):

------------------------------------------------------------------------

struct percpu_rw_semaphore {
	bool locked;
	struct mutex mtx; /* Could also be rw_semaphore. */
	struct srcu_struct s;
	wait_queue_head_t wq;
};

static inline int percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	int idx;

	idx = srcu_read_lock(&p->s);
	if (unlikely(p->locked)) {
		srcu_read_unlock(&p->s, idx);

		/*
		 * There might (or might not) be a writer.  Acquire &p->mtx,
		 * it is always safe (if a bit slow) to do so.
		 */
		mutex_lock(&p->mtx);
		return -1;  /* srcu_read_lock() cannot return -1. */
	}
	return idx;
}

static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p, int idx)
{
	if (idx == -1)
		mutex_unlock(&p->mtx);
	else
		srcu_read_unlock(&p->s, idx);
}

static inline void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	mutex_lock(&p->mtx);

	/* Wait for a previous writer, if necessary. */
	wait_event(p->wq, !ACCESS_ONCE(p->locked));

	/* Force new readers to acquire the lock when manipulating counts. */
	ACCESS_ONCE(p->locked) = true;

	/* Wait for all pre-existing readers' checks of ->locked to finish. */
	synchronize_srcu(&p->s);
	/* At this point, all lockless readers have completed. */
}

static inline void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	/* Allow others to proceed, but not yet locklessly. */
	mutex_unlock(&p->mtx);

	/*
	 * Ensure that all calls to percpu_down_read() that did not
	 * start unambiguously after the above mutex_unlock() still
	 * acquire the lock, forcing their critical sections to be
	 * serialized with the one terminated by this call to
	 * percpu_up_write().
	 */
	synchronize_sched();

	/* Now it is safe to allow readers to proceed locklessly. */
	ACCESS_ONCE(p->locked) = false;

	/*
	 * If there is another writer waiting, wake it up.  Note that
	 * p->mtx properly serializes its critical section with the
	 * critical section terminated by this call to percpu_up_write().
	 */
	wake_up(&p->wq);
}

static inline int percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	p->locked = false;
	mutex_init(&p->mtx);
	if (unlikely(!init_srcu_struct(&p->s)));
		return -ENOMEM;
	init_waitqueue_head(&p->wq);
	return 0;
}

static inline void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
	cleanup_srcu_struct(&p->s);
}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, there was a question raised as to whether something already
exists that does this job...

And you guys did ask!

							Thanx, Paul


  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-24 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-15 19:09 [RFC PATCH 0/2] uprobes: register/unregister can race with fork Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-15 19:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-15 23:28   ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-16 15:56     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-16 18:58       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-17 16:37         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-17 22:28           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-16 19:56   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-10-17 16:59     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-17 22:44       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-18 16:24         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-18 16:38           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-18 17:57             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-18 19:28               ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-19 12:38                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-19 15:32                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-19 17:40                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-19 17:57                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-19 22:54                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-24  3:08                         ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-25 14:09                           ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-25 23:40                             ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-26 12:06                               ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-26 13:22                                 ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-26 14:12                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-26 15:23                                     ` mark_files_ro && sb_end_write Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-26 16:09                                     ` [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-19 17:49                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-22 23:09                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-23 15:12                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-19 19:28               ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-22 23:36                 ` [PATCH 0/2] fix and improvements for percpu-rw-semaphores (was: brw_mutex: big read-write mutex) Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-22 23:37                   ` [PATCH 1/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use light/heavy barriers Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-22 23:39                     ` [PATCH 2/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use rcu_read_lock_sched Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-24 16:16                       ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2012-10-24 17:18                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-24 18:20                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-24 18:43                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-24 19:43                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-25 14:54                         ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-25 15:07                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-25 16:15                             ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-23 16:59                     ` [PATCH 1/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use light/heavy barriers Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-23 18:05                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-23 18:27                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-23 18:41                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-23 20:29                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-23 20:32                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-23 21:39                               ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-24 16:23                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-24 20:22                                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-24 20:36                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-24 20:44                                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-24 23:57                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-25 12:39                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-25 13:48                                           ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-23 19:23                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-23 20:45                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-23 20:57                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-24 15:11                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-23 21:26                         ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-23 20:32                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-30 18:48                   ` [PATCH 0/2] fix and improvements for percpu-rw-semaphores (was: brw_mutex: big read-write mutex) Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-31 19:41                     ` [PATCH 0/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-31 19:41                       ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-01 15:10                         ` Linus Torvalds
2012-11-01 15:34                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-02 18:06                           ` [PATCH v2 0/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-02 18:06                             ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-07 17:04                               ` [PATCH v3 " Mikulas Patocka
2012-11-07 17:47                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-07 19:17                                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-11-08 13:42                                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-08  1:23                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-08  1:16                               ` [PATCH v2 " Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-08 13:33                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-08 16:27                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-08 13:48                             ` [PATCH RESEND v2 0/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-08 13:48                               ` [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-08 20:07                                 ` Andrew Morton
2012-11-08 21:08                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-08 23:41                                     ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-11-09  0:41                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-09  3:23                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-09 16:35                                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-09 16:59                                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-09 12:47                                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-11-09 15:46                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-09 17:01                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-09 18:10                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-09 18:19                                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-10  0:55                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-11 15:45                                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-12 18:38                                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-11 18:27                                   ` [PATCH -mm] percpu_rw_semaphore-reimplement-to-not-block-the-readers-unnecessari ly.fix Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-12 18:31                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-16 23:22                                     ` Andrew Morton
2012-11-18 19:32                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-01 15:43                         ` [PATCH 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-01 18:33                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-02 16:18                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-15 19:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] uprobes: Use brw_mutex to fix register/unregister vs dup_mmap() race Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-18  7:03   ` Srikar Dronamraju

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=20121024161638.GA2465@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=anton@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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).