From: Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com>
To: paulmck@us.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DOCUMENTATION] Revised Unreliable Kernel Locking Guide
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:17:47 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031215060851.1882C189E1@ozlabs.au.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:59 -0800." <20031212193559.GA1614@us.ibm.com>
In message <20031212193559.GA1614@us.ibm.com> you write:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:24:18PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > OK, I've put the html version up for your reading pleasure: the diff
> > is quite extensive and hard to read.
> >
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/
> >
> > Feedback welcome,
> > Rusty.
> > --
> > Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
>
> Hello, Rusty,
>
> Good stuff! A few comments, as always!
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> Glossary:
>
> o Hardware Interrupt / Hardware IRQ: How does in_irq()
> know that interrupts have been blocked? The local_irq_disable()
> does not seem to mess with the counter, and preempt_disable()
> just does the standard inc/dec stuff...
You're right, it doesn't.
> o in_irq() is hardirq_count().
> o hardirq_count() is (preempt_count() & HARDIRQ_MASK).
> o preempt_count is an integer, HARDIRQ_MASK is a constant that
> is out of the normal inc/dec range.
>
> I see how an interrupt handler causes in_irq() to do its thing
> via the irq_enter() and irq_exit() macros, but I don't see how
> masking interrupts makes this happen.
>
> Probably just my confusion, but...
>
> Ditto for "in_interrupt()". That would be for both the
> analysis and the probable confusion on my part.
Yes. I've removed both those: AFAICT they were never true.
> o Software Interrupt / softirq: formatting botch "of'software".
> This would be "o'software", right?
Looks ok here:
Tasklets and softirqs both fall into the category of 'software interrupts'.
> o Preemption: Would it be worth changing the first bit
> of the second sentence to read something like: "In 2.5.4
> and later, when CONFIG_PREEMPT is set, this changes:"?
I was trying to make it a little future-proof: I think CONFIG_PREEMPT
should go away some day.
> Overzealous Prevention Of Deadlocks: Cute!!!
This is untouched from the old version of the document. I had a
troubled youth...
> Avoiding Locks: Read Copy Update
>
> o Might be worth noting explicitly early on that updaters are
> running concurrently with readers. Should be obvious given
> that the readers aren't doing any explicit synchronization,
> but I have run into confusion on this point surprisingly often.
OK. Changed the second paragraph from:
How do we get rid of read locks? That is actually quite simple:
to:
How do we get rid of read locks? Getting rid of read locks
means that writers may be changing the list underneath the readers.
That is actually quite simple:
> o Please add a note to the list_for_each_entry_rcu() description
> saying that writers (who hold appropriate locks) need not use
> the _rcu() variant.
OK:
Once again, there is a
<function>list_for_each_entry_rcu()</function>
(<filename>include/linux/list.h</filename>) to help you. Of
course, writers can just use
<function>list_for_each_entry()</function>, since there cannot
be two simultaneous writers.
> o Don't understand the blank line before and after the
> "struct rcu_head rcu;", but clearly doesn't affect
> functionality. ;-)
Hmm, it would logically be at the start of the structure. I think I
wanted to avoid associating it with the refcnt_t.
> o If nothing blocks between the call to __cache_find() and the
> eventual object_put(), it is worthwhile to avoid the
> reference-count manipulation. This would make all of
> cache_find() be almost as fast as UP, rather than just
> __cache_find().
Good point. Text added at the bottom of that section:
<para>
There is a furthur optimization possible here: remember our original
cache code, where there were no reference counts and the caller simply
held the lock whenever using the object? This is still possible: if
you hold the lock, noone can delete the object, so you don't need to
get and put the reference count.
</para>
<para>
Now, because the 'read lock' in RCU is simply disabling preemption, a
caller which always preemption disabled between calling
<function>cache_find()</function> and
<function>object_put()</function> does not need to actually get and
put the reference count: we could expose
<function>__cache_find()</function> by making it non-static, and
such callers could simply call that.
</para>
<para>
The benefit here is that the reference count is not written to: the
object is not altered in any way, which is much faster on SMP
machines due to caching.
</para>
I've uploaded a new draft with these and other fixes...
Thanks!
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-15 6:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-12 5:24 [DOCUMENTATION] Revised Unreliable Kernel Locking Guide Rusty Russell
2003-12-12 15:44 ` Dave Jones
2003-12-12 16:25 ` Keith Owens
2003-12-12 18:25 ` Dave Jones
2003-12-13 0:28 ` Keith Owens
2003-12-12 21:05 ` Rob Love
2003-12-15 2:28 ` Rusty Russell
2003-12-12 19:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2003-12-13 3:16 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2003-12-15 5:17 ` Rusty Russell
2003-12-15 5:17 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2003-12-15 22:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2003-12-16 6:32 ` Rusty Russell
2003-12-13 3:15 Manfred Spraul
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=20031215060851.1882C189E1@ozlabs.au.ibm.com \
--to=rusty@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
/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).