From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: Provide polling interfaces for Tree RCU grace periods
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 13:21:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210312122142.GB3646@lothringen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210304002632.23870-1-paulmck@kernel.org>
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 04:26:30PM -0800, paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
>
> There is a need for a non-blocking polling interface for RCU grace
> periods, so this commit supplies start_poll_synchronize_rcu() and
> poll_state_synchronize_rcu() for this purpose. Note that the existing
> get_state_synchronize_rcu() may be used if future grace periods are
> inevitable (perhaps due to a later call_rcu() invocation). The new
> start_poll_synchronize_rcu() is to be used if future grace periods
> might not otherwise happen.
By future grace period, you mean if a grace period has been started right
_before_ we start polling, right?
> Finally, poll_state_synchronize_rcu()
> provides a lockless check for a grace period having elapsed since
> the corresponding call to either of the get_state_synchronize_rcu()
> or start_poll_synchronize_rcu().
>
> As with get_state_synchronize_rcu(), the return value from either
> get_state_synchronize_rcu() or start_poll_synchronize_rcu() is passed in
> to a later call to either poll_state_synchronize_rcu() or the existing
> (might_sleep) cond_synchronize_rcu().
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
[...]
> /**
> + * start_poll_state_synchronize_rcu - Snapshot and start RCU grace period
> + *
> + * Returns a cookie that is used by a later call to cond_synchronize_rcu()
> + * or poll_state_synchronize_rcu() to determine whether or not a full
> + * grace period has elapsed in the meantime. If the needed grace period
> + * is not already slated to start, notifies RCU core of the need for that
> + * grace period.
> + *
> + * Interrupts must be enabled for the case where it is necessary to awaken
> + * the grace-period kthread.
> + */
> +unsigned long start_poll_synchronize_rcu(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned long gp_seq = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> + bool needwake;
> + struct rcu_data *rdp;
> + struct rcu_node *rnp;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled();
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> + rnp = rdp->mynode;
> + raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp); // irqs already disabled.
> + needwake = rcu_start_this_gp(rnp, rdp, gp_seq);
I'm a bit surprised we don't start a new grace period instead of snapshotting
the current one.
So if we do this:
//start grace period gp_num=5
old = p;
rcu_assign_pointer(p, new);
num = start_poll_synchronize_rcu(); // num = 5
//grace period ends, start new gp_num=6
poll_state_synchronize_rcu(num); // rcu seq is done
kfree(old);
Isn't there a risk that other CPUs still see the old pointer?
Of course I know I'm missing something obvious :-)
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-12 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-04 0:26 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/3] Polling RCU grace-period interfaces for v5.13 Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-04 0:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: Provide polling interfaces for Tree RCU grace periods paulmck
2021-03-12 12:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2021-03-12 12:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-15 23:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-16 14:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-16 16:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-16 15:17 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-16 16:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-18 14:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-18 17:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-19 13:58 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-19 17:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-19 22:10 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-19 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-19 23:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-04 0:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] rcu: Provide polling interfaces for Tiny " paulmck
2021-03-21 22:28 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-22 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-22 19:00 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-22 19:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-23 14:02 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-03-23 16:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-03-04 0:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/3] rcutorture: Test start_poll_synchronize_rcu() and poll_state_synchronize_rcu() paulmck
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=20210312122142.GB3646@lothringen \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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).