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=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 B1526FC6197 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org [140.211.169.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8700A21882 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Ff5mXt2/" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8700A21882 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from mail.linux-foundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402C8154D; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A7D61545 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:29:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49900710 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (unknown [109.144.209.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6E29207FA; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:29:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1573136968; bh=0sL7l/n0UDIQqcSLSKAXeHYslytegyv9hyEW/zqifKw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ff5mXt2/umhb4Dwu0Qc4TMI7f9X0seNPD3COwUR8CsP5nbpU/Q8A7WrzCNzp5JsTi boUZE9IVwsLrd8M/IWdRLwW1GBzQrUQnTRTb5N9ku/bcOqeEeM4LhiTwMlKEUIdg4n zIRdEGSPo2UQ3dL82YI+z0L1lJ0xE3hc3El0NtWc= Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EBD1435227FC; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 06:29:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 06:29:25 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Phong Tran Message-ID: <20191107142925.GO20975@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> References: <20191107063241.GA2234@workstation-kernel-dev> <3d3bf2ea-b8af-e561-a631-fb9205973e99@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3d3bf2ea-b8af-e561-a631-fb9205973e99@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Lai Jiangshan , Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, Mathieu Desnoyers , Joel Fernandes , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v2] Documentation: RCU: rcubarrier: Convert to reST X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:58:18PM +0700, Phong Tran wrote: > On 11/7/19 1:32 PM, Amol Grover wrote: > > Convert rcubarrier.txt to rcubarrier.rst and > > add it to index.rst > > > > Format file according to reST > > - Add headings and sub-headings > > - Add code segments > > - Add cross-references to quizes and answers > > Tested-by: Phong Tran Applied, thank you both! Thanx, Paul > > Signed-off-by: Amol Grover > > --- > > Documentation/RCU/index.rst | 1 + > > .../RCU/{rcubarrier.txt => rcubarrier.rst} | 222 ++++++++++-------- > > 2 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > rename Documentation/RCU/{rcubarrier.txt => rcubarrier.rst} (72%) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst > > index c81d0e4fd999..81a0a1e5f767 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ RCU concepts > > :maxdepth: 3 > > arrayRCU > > + rcubarrier > > rcu_dereference > > whatisRCU > > rcu > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst > > similarity index 72% > > rename from Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt > > rename to Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst > > index a2782df69732..f64f4413a47c 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst > > @@ -1,4 +1,7 @@ > > +.. _rcu_barrier: > > + > > RCU and Unloadable Modules > > +========================== > > [Originally published in LWN Jan. 14, 2007: http://lwn.net/Articles/217484/] > > @@ -21,7 +24,7 @@ given that readers might well leave absolutely no trace of their > > presence? There is a synchronize_rcu() primitive that blocks until all > > pre-existing readers have completed. An updater wishing to delete an > > element p from a linked list might do the following, while holding an > > -appropriate lock, of course: > > +appropriate lock, of course:: > > list_del_rcu(p); > > synchronize_rcu(); > > @@ -32,13 +35,13 @@ primitive must be used instead. This primitive takes a pointer to an > > rcu_head struct placed within the RCU-protected data structure and > > another pointer to a function that may be invoked later to free that > > structure. Code to delete an element p from the linked list from IRQ > > -context might then be as follows: > > +context might then be as follows:: > > list_del_rcu(p); > > call_rcu(&p->rcu, p_callback); > > Since call_rcu() never blocks, this code can safely be used from within > > -IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows: > > +IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows:: > > static void p_callback(struct rcu_head *rp) > > { > > @@ -49,6 +52,7 @@ IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows: > > Unloading Modules That Use call_rcu() > > +------------------------------------- > > But what if p_callback is defined in an unloadable module? > > @@ -69,10 +73,11 @@ in realtime kernels in order to avoid excessive scheduling latencies. > > rcu_barrier() > > +------------- > > We instead need the rcu_barrier() primitive. Rather than waiting for > > a grace period to elapse, rcu_barrier() waits for all outstanding RCU > > -callbacks to complete. Please note that rcu_barrier() does -not- imply > > +callbacks to complete. Please note that rcu_barrier() does **not** imply > > synchronize_rcu(), in particular, if there are no RCU callbacks queued > > anywhere, rcu_barrier() is within its rights to return immediately, > > without waiting for a grace period to elapse. > > @@ -88,79 +93,79 @@ must match the flavor of rcu_barrier() with that of call_rcu(). If your > > module uses multiple flavors of call_rcu(), then it must also use multiple > > flavors of rcu_barrier() when unloading that module. For example, if > > it uses call_rcu(), call_srcu() on srcu_struct_1, and call_srcu() on > > -srcu_struct_2(), then the following three lines of code will be required > > -when unloading: > > +srcu_struct_2, then the following three lines of code will be required > > +when unloading:: > > 1 rcu_barrier(); > > 2 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_1); > > 3 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_2); > > The rcutorture module makes use of rcu_barrier() in its exit function > > -as follows: > > +as follows:: > > - 1 static void > > - 2 rcu_torture_cleanup(void) > > - 3 { > > - 4 int i; > > + 1 static void > > + 2 rcu_torture_cleanup(void) > > + 3 { > > + 4 int i; > > 5 > > - 6 fullstop = 1; > > - 7 if (shuffler_task != NULL) { > > + 6 fullstop = 1; > > + 7 if (shuffler_task != NULL) { > > 8 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_shuffle task"); > > 9 kthread_stop(shuffler_task); > > -10 } > > -11 shuffler_task = NULL; > > -12 > > -13 if (writer_task != NULL) { > > -14 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_writer task"); > > -15 kthread_stop(writer_task); > > -16 } > > -17 writer_task = NULL; > > -18 > > -19 if (reader_tasks != NULL) { > > -20 for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) { > > -21 if (reader_tasks[i] != NULL) { > > -22 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( > > -23 "Stopping rcu_torture_reader task"); > > -24 kthread_stop(reader_tasks[i]); > > -25 } > > -26 reader_tasks[i] = NULL; > > -27 } > > -28 kfree(reader_tasks); > > -29 reader_tasks = NULL; > > -30 } > > -31 rcu_torture_current = NULL; > > -32 > > -33 if (fakewriter_tasks != NULL) { > > -34 for (i = 0; i < nfakewriters; i++) { > > -35 if (fakewriter_tasks[i] != NULL) { > > -36 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( > > -37 "Stopping rcu_torture_fakewriter task"); > > -38 kthread_stop(fakewriter_tasks[i]); > > -39 } > > -40 fakewriter_tasks[i] = NULL; > > -41 } > > -42 kfree(fakewriter_tasks); > > -43 fakewriter_tasks = NULL; > > -44 } > > -45 > > -46 if (stats_task != NULL) { > > -47 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_stats task"); > > -48 kthread_stop(stats_task); > > -49 } > > -50 stats_task = NULL; > > -51 > > -52 /* Wait for all RCU callbacks to fire. */ > > -53 rcu_barrier(); > > -54 > > -55 rcu_torture_stats_print(); /* -After- the stats thread is stopped! */ > > -56 > > -57 if (cur_ops->cleanup != NULL) > > -58 cur_ops->cleanup(); > > -59 if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_torture_error)) > > -60 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: FAILURE"); > > -61 else > > -62 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: SUCCESS"); > > -63 } > > + 10 } > > + 11 shuffler_task = NULL; > > + 12 > > + 13 if (writer_task != NULL) { > > + 14 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_writer task"); > > + 15 kthread_stop(writer_task); > > + 16 } > > + 17 writer_task = NULL; > > + 18 > > + 19 if (reader_tasks != NULL) { > > + 20 for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) { > > + 21 if (reader_tasks[i] != NULL) { > > + 22 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( > > + 23 "Stopping rcu_torture_reader task"); > > + 24 kthread_stop(reader_tasks[i]); > > + 25 } > > + 26 reader_tasks[i] = NULL; > > + 27 } > > + 28 kfree(reader_tasks); > > + 29 reader_tasks = NULL; > > + 30 } > > + 31 rcu_torture_current = NULL; > > + 32 > > + 33 if (fakewriter_tasks != NULL) { > > + 34 for (i = 0; i < nfakewriters; i++) { > > + 35 if (fakewriter_tasks[i] != NULL) { > > + 36 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( > > + 37 "Stopping rcu_torture_fakewriter task"); > > + 38 kthread_stop(fakewriter_tasks[i]); > > + 39 } > > + 40 fakewriter_tasks[i] = NULL; > > + 41 } > > + 42 kfree(fakewriter_tasks); > > + 43 fakewriter_tasks = NULL; > > + 44 } > > + 45 > > + 46 if (stats_task != NULL) { > > + 47 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_stats task"); > > + 48 kthread_stop(stats_task); > > + 49 } > > + 50 stats_task = NULL; > > + 51 > > + 52 /* Wait for all RCU callbacks to fire. */ > > + 53 rcu_barrier(); > > + 54 > > + 55 rcu_torture_stats_print(); /* -After- the stats thread is stopped! */ > > + 56 > > + 57 if (cur_ops->cleanup != NULL) > > + 58 cur_ops->cleanup(); > > + 59 if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_torture_error)) > > + 60 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: FAILURE"); > > + 61 else > > + 62 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: SUCCESS"); > > + 63 } > > Line 6 sets a global variable that prevents any RCU callbacks from > > re-posting themselves. This will not be necessary in most cases, since > > @@ -176,9 +181,14 @@ for any pre-existing callbacks to complete. > > Then lines 55-62 print status and do operation-specific cleanup, and > > then return, permitting the module-unload operation to be completed. > > -Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might > > +.. _rcubarrier_quiz_1: > > + > > +Quick Quiz #1: > > + Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might > > be required? > > +:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #1 ` > > + > > Your module might have additional complications. For example, if your > > module invokes call_rcu() from timers, you will need to first cancel all > > the timers, and only then invoke rcu_barrier() to wait for any remaining > > @@ -188,11 +198,12 @@ Of course, if you module uses call_rcu(), you will need to invoke > > rcu_barrier() before unloading. Similarly, if your module uses > > call_srcu(), you will need to invoke srcu_barrier() before unloading, > > and on the same srcu_struct structure. If your module uses call_rcu() > > --and- call_srcu(), then you will need to invoke rcu_barrier() -and- > > +**and** call_srcu(), then you will need to invoke rcu_barrier() **and** > > srcu_barrier(). > > Implementing rcu_barrier() > > +-------------------------- > > Dipankar Sarma's implementation of rcu_barrier() makes use of the fact > > that RCU callbacks are never reordered once queued on one of the per-CPU > > @@ -200,19 +211,19 @@ queues. His implementation queues an RCU callback on each of the per-CPU > > callback queues, and then waits until they have all started executing, at > > which point, all earlier RCU callbacks are guaranteed to have completed. > > -The original code for rcu_barrier() was as follows: > > +The original code for rcu_barrier() was as follows:: > > - 1 void rcu_barrier(void) > > - 2 { > > - 3 BUG_ON(in_interrupt()); > > - 4 /* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */ > > - 5 mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); > > - 6 init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); > > - 7 atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 0); > > - 8 on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, NULL, 0, 1); > > - 9 wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); > > -10 mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); > > -11 } > > + 1 void rcu_barrier(void) > > + 2 { > > + 3 BUG_ON(in_interrupt()); > > + 4 /* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */ > > + 5 mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); > > + 6 init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); > > + 7 atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 0); > > + 8 on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, NULL, 0, 1); > > + 9 wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); > > + 10 mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); > > + 11 } > > Line 3 verifies that the caller is in process context, and lines 5 and 10 > > use rcu_barrier_mutex to ensure that only one rcu_barrier() is using the > > @@ -226,18 +237,18 @@ This code was rewritten in 2008 and several times thereafter, but this > > still gives the general idea. > > The rcu_barrier_func() runs on each CPU, where it invokes call_rcu() > > -to post an RCU callback, as follows: > > +to post an RCU callback, as follows:: > > - 1 static void rcu_barrier_func(void *notused) > > - 2 { > > - 3 int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > - 4 struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu); > > - 5 struct rcu_head *head; > > + 1 static void rcu_barrier_func(void *notused) > > + 2 { > > + 3 int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > + 4 struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu); > > + 5 struct rcu_head *head; > > 6 > > - 7 head = &rdp->barrier; > > - 8 atomic_inc(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count); > > - 9 call_rcu(head, rcu_barrier_callback); > > -10 } > > + 7 head = &rdp->barrier; > > + 8 atomic_inc(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count); > > + 9 call_rcu(head, rcu_barrier_callback); > > + 10 } > > Lines 3 and 4 locate RCU's internal per-CPU rcu_data structure, > > which contains the struct rcu_head that needed for the later call to > > @@ -248,20 +259,25 @@ the current CPU's queue. > > The rcu_barrier_callback() function simply atomically decrements the > > rcu_barrier_cpu_count variable and finalizes the completion when it > > -reaches zero, as follows: > > +reaches zero, as follows:: > > 1 static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *notused) > > 2 { > > - 3 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count)) > > - 4 complete(&rcu_barrier_completion); > > + 3 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count)) > > + 4 complete(&rcu_barrier_completion); > > 5 } > > -Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes > > +.. _rcubarrier_quiz_2: > > + > > +Quick Quiz #2: > > + What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes > > immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the > > value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations > > are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in > > rcu_barrier() returning prematurely? > > +:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #2 ` > > + > > The current rcu_barrier() implementation is more complex, due to the need > > to avoid disturbing idle CPUs (especially on battery-powered systems) > > and the need to minimally disturb non-idle CPUs in real-time systems. > > @@ -269,6 +285,7 @@ However, the code above illustrates the concepts. > > rcu_barrier() Summary > > +--------------------- > > The rcu_barrier() primitive has seen relatively little use, since most > > code using RCU is in the core kernel rather than in modules. However, if > > @@ -277,8 +294,12 @@ so that your module may be safely unloaded. > > Answers to Quick Quizzes > > +------------------------ > > + > > +.. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_1: > > -Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might > > +Quick Quiz #1: > > + Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might > > be required? > > Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally > > @@ -292,7 +313,12 @@ Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally > > implementing rcutorture, and found that rcu_barrier() solves > > this problem as well. > > -Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes > > +:ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #1 ` > > + > > +.. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_2: > > + > > +Quick Quiz #2: > > + What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes > > immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the > > value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations > > are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in > > @@ -323,3 +349,5 @@ Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last > > is to add an rcu_read_lock() before line 8 of rcu_barrier() > > and an rcu_read_unlock() after line 8 of this same function. If > > you can think of a better change, please let me know! > > + > > +:ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #2 ` > > _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees