From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF945C43142 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:52:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6552A25DBF for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:52:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6552A25DBF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965379AbeF0Rwi (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:38 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:45116 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754624AbeF0Rwh (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:37 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5RHoB9J048429 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:37 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jveajjhdr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:36 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:36 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.26) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:30 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5RHqTHj1310990 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:52:29 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E57EB2064; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663F4B205F; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.159]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2DA2B16C4293; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:54:36 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/27] rcu: Add comment documenting how rcu_seq_snap works Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180626003448.GA26209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180626003513.27812-16-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180626173055.GJ2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180627043913.GA177710@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180627043913.GA177710@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18062717-0040-0000-0000-00000446034A X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009265; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01053163; UDB=6.00539965; IPR=6.00831087; MB=3.00021885; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-27 17:52:34 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18062717-0041-0000-0000-0000084C1AA4 Message-Id: <20180627175436.GC3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-27_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806270190 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:39:13PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:30:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:35:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > +/* > > > + * rcu_seq_snap - Take a snapshot of the update side's sequence number. > > > + * > > > + * This function returns the earliest value of the grace-period sequence number > > > + * that will indicate that a full grace period has elapsed since the current > > > + * time. Once the grace-period sequence number has reached this value, it will > > > + * be safe to invoke all callbacks that have been registered prior to the > > > + * current time. This value is the current grace-period number plus two to the > > > + * power of the number of low-order bits reserved for state, then rounded up to > > > + * the next value in which the state bits are all zero. > > > > If you complete that by saying _why_ you need to round up there, then > > the below verbiage is completely redundant. > > > > > + * In the current design, RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK=3 and the least significant bit of > > > + * the seq is used to track if a GP is in progress or not. Given this, it is > > > + * sufficient if we add (6+1) and mask with ~3 to get the next GP. Let's see > > > + * why with an example: > > > + * > > > + * Say the current seq is 12 which is 0b1100 (GP is 3 and state bits are 0b00). > > > + * To get to the next GP number of 4, we have to add 0b100 to this (0x1 << 2) > > > + * to account for the shift due to 2 state bits. Now, if the current seq is > > > + * 13 (GP is 3 and state bits are 0b01), then it means the current grace period > > > + * is already in progress so the next GP that a future call back will be queued > > > + * to run at is GP+2 = 5, not 4. To account for the extra +1, we just overflow > > > + * the 2 lower bits by adding 0b11. In case the lower bit was set, the overflow > > > + * will cause the extra +1 to the GP, along with the usual +1 explained before. > > > + * This gives us GP+2. Finally we mask the lower to bits by ~0x3 in case the > > > + * overflow didn't occur. This masking is needed because in case RCU was idle > > > + * (no GP in progress so lower 2 bits are 0b00), then the overflow of the lower > > > + * 2 state bits wouldn't occur, so we mask to zero out those lower 2 bits. > > > + * > > > + * In other words, the next seq can be obtained by (0b11 + 0b100) & (~0b11) > > > + * which can be generalized to: > > > + * seq + (RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK + (RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK + 1)) & (~RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK) > > > + */ > > > > Is the below not much simpler: > > > > > static inline unsigned long rcu_seq_snap(unsigned long *sp) > > > { > > > unsigned long s; > > > > s = smp_load_aquire(sp); > > > > /* Add one GP */ > > s += 1 << RCU_SEQ_CTR_SHIFT; > > > > /* Complete any pending state by rounding up */ > > I would suggest this comment be changed to "Add another GP if there was a > pending state". > > > s = __ALIGN_MASK(s, RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK); > > > > I agree with Peter's suggestions for both the verbiage reduction in the > comments in the header, as the new code he is proposing is more > self-documenting. I believe I proposed a big comment just because the code > wasn't self-documenting or obvious previously so needed an explanation. > > How would you like to proceed? Let me know what you guys decide, I am really > Ok with anything. If you guys agree, should I write a follow-up patch with > Peter's suggestion that applies on top of this one? Or do we want to drop > this one in favor of Peter's suggestion? Shortening the comment would be good, so please do that. I cannot say that I am much of a fan of the suggested change to the computation, but I don't feel all that strongly about it. If the two of you agree on a formulation and get at least one other RCU maintainer or reviewer to agree as well, I will take the change. > I guess we also have to conclude the other part about using memory barriers, > but I think that should be a separate patch. It definitely should not be part of this patch. ;-) Thanx, Paul