From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.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,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/12] rcu: Consolidate PREEMPT and !PREEMPT synchronize_rcu()
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:18:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190109211850.31599-10-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190109211830.GA30595@linux.ibm.com>
Now that rcu_blocking_is_gp() makes the correct immediate-return
decision for both PREEMPT and !PREEMPT, a single implementation of
synchronize_rcu() will work correctly under both configurations.
This commit therefore eliminates a few lines of code by consolidating
the two implementations of synchronize_rcu().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 27 ---------------
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 64 -----------------------------------
3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index fc37bec32731..e2bd42b2b563 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2950,6 +2950,79 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfree_call_rcu);
+/*
+ * During early boot, any blocking grace-period wait automatically
+ * implies a grace period. Later on, this is never the case for PREEMPT.
+ *
+ * Howevr, because a context switch is a grace period for !PREEMPT, any
+ * blocking grace-period wait automatically implies a grace period if
+ * there is only one CPU online at any point time during execution of
+ * either synchronize_rcu() or synchronize_rcu_expedited(). It is OK to
+ * occasionally incorrectly indicate that there are multiple CPUs online
+ * when there was in fact only one the whole time, as this just adds some
+ * overhead: RCU still operates correctly.
+ */
+static int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT))
+ return rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE;
+ might_sleep(); /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
+ preempt_disable();
+ ret = num_online_cpus() <= 1;
+ preempt_enable();
+ return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * synchronize_rcu - wait until a grace period has elapsed.
+ *
+ * Control will return to the caller some time after a full grace
+ * period has elapsed, in other words after all currently executing RCU
+ * read-side critical sections have completed. Note, however, that
+ * upon return from synchronize_rcu(), the caller might well be executing
+ * concurrently with new RCU read-side critical sections that began while
+ * synchronize_rcu() was waiting. RCU read-side critical sections are
+ * delimited by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), and may be nested.
+ * In addition, regions of code across which interrupts, preemption, or
+ * softirqs have been disabled also serve as RCU read-side critical
+ * sections. This includes hardware interrupt handlers, softirq handlers,
+ * and NMI handlers.
+ *
+ * Note that this guarantee implies further memory-ordering guarantees.
+ * On systems with more than one CPU, when synchronize_rcu() returns,
+ * each CPU is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier since
+ * the end of its last RCU read-side critical section whose beginning
+ * preceded the call to synchronize_rcu(). In addition, each CPU having
+ * an RCU read-side critical section that extends beyond the return from
+ * synchronize_rcu() is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier
+ * after the beginning of synchronize_rcu() and before the beginning of
+ * that RCU read-side critical section. Note that these guarantees include
+ * CPUs that are offline, idle, or executing in user mode, as well as CPUs
+ * that are executing in the kernel.
+ *
+ * Furthermore, if CPU A invoked synchronize_rcu(), which returned
+ * to its caller on CPU B, then both CPU A and CPU B are guaranteed
+ * to have executed a full memory barrier during the execution of
+ * synchronize_rcu() -- even if CPU A and CPU B are the same CPU (but
+ * again only if the system has more than one CPU).
+ */
+void synchronize_rcu(void)
+{
+ RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
+ lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
+ lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
+ "Illegal synchronize_rcu() in RCU read-side critical section");
+ if (rcu_blocking_is_gp())
+ return;
+ if (rcu_gp_is_expedited())
+ synchronize_rcu_expedited();
+ else
+ wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu);
+
/**
* get_state_synchronize_rcu - Snapshot current RCU state
*
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index b800bdfe74b3..353d113c0cd4 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -643,33 +643,6 @@ static void _synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.exp_mutex);
}
-/*
- * During early boot, any blocking grace-period wait automatically
- * implies a grace period. Later on, this is never the case for PREEMPT.
- *
- * Howevr, because a context switch is a grace period for !PREEMPT, any
- * blocking grace-period wait automatically implies a grace period if
- * there is only one CPU online at any point time during execution of
- * either synchronize_rcu() or synchronize_rcu_expedited(). It is OK to
- * occasionally incorrectly indicate that there are multiple CPUs online
- * when there was in fact only one the whole time, as this just adds some
- * overhead: RCU still operates correctly.
- */
-static int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
-{
- int ret;
-
- if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE)
- return true;
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT))
- return false;
- might_sleep(); /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
- preempt_disable();
- ret = num_online_cpus() <= 1;
- preempt_enable();
- return ret;
-}
-
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
/*
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index bcf3e7366a28..43f3f2ee9d63 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -825,54 +825,6 @@ static void rcu_flavor_check_callbacks(int user)
t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = true;
}
-/**
- * synchronize_rcu - wait until a grace period has elapsed.
- *
- * Control will return to the caller some time after a full grace
- * period has elapsed, in other words after all currently executing RCU
- * read-side critical sections have completed. Note, however, that
- * upon return from synchronize_rcu(), the caller might well be executing
- * concurrently with new RCU read-side critical sections that began while
- * synchronize_rcu() was waiting. RCU read-side critical sections are
- * delimited by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), and may be nested.
- * In addition, regions of code across which interrupts, preemption, or
- * softirqs have been disabled also serve as RCU read-side critical
- * sections. This includes hardware interrupt handlers, softirq handlers,
- * and NMI handlers.
- *
- * Note that this guarantee implies further memory-ordering guarantees.
- * On systems with more than one CPU, when synchronize_rcu() returns,
- * each CPU is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier since
- * the end of its last RCU read-side critical section whose beginning
- * preceded the call to synchronize_rcu(). In addition, each CPU having
- * an RCU read-side critical section that extends beyond the return from
- * synchronize_rcu() is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier
- * after the beginning of synchronize_rcu() and before the beginning of
- * that RCU read-side critical section. Note that these guarantees include
- * CPUs that are offline, idle, or executing in user mode, as well as CPUs
- * that are executing in the kernel.
- *
- * Furthermore, if CPU A invoked synchronize_rcu(), which returned
- * to its caller on CPU B, then both CPU A and CPU B are guaranteed
- * to have executed a full memory barrier during the execution of
- * synchronize_rcu() -- even if CPU A and CPU B are the same CPU (but
- * again only if the system has more than one CPU).
- */
-void synchronize_rcu(void)
-{
- RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
- lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
- lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
- "Illegal synchronize_rcu() in RCU read-side critical section");
- if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE)
- return;
- if (rcu_gp_is_expedited())
- synchronize_rcu_expedited();
- else
- wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu);
-
/*
* Check for a task exiting while in a preemptible-RCU read-side
* critical section, clean up if so. No need to issue warnings,
@@ -1115,22 +1067,6 @@ static void rcu_flavor_check_callbacks(int user)
}
}
-/* PREEMPT=n implementation of synchronize_rcu(). */
-void synchronize_rcu(void)
-{
- RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
- lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
- lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
- "Illegal synchronize_rcu() in RCU read-side critical section");
- if (rcu_blocking_is_gp())
- return;
- if (rcu_gp_is_expedited())
- synchronize_rcu_expedited();
- else
- wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu);
-
/*
* Because preemptible RCU does not exist, tasks cannot possibly exit
* while in preemptible RCU read-side critical sections.
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-09 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-09 21:18 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/12] RCU flavor consolidation cleanups for v5.1 Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/12] sched: Replace call_rcu_sched() with call_rcu() Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/12] sched: Replace synchronize_sched() with synchronize_rcu() Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/12] rcu: Rename and comment changes due to only one rcuo kthread per CPU Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/12] rcu: Make expedited IPI handler return after handling critical section Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/12] rcu: Inline force_quiescent_state() into rcu_force_quiescent_state() Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/12] rcu: Eliminate RCU_BH_FLAVOR and RCU_SCHED_FLAVOR Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/12] rcu: Inline rcu_kthread_do_work() into its sole remaining caller Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/12] rcu: Determine expedited-GP IPI handler at build time Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/12] rcu: Consolidate PREEMPT and !PREEMPT synchronize_rcu_expedited() Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/12] rcu: Inline _synchronize_rcu_expedited() into synchronize_rcu_expedited() Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-09 21:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/12] rcu: Discard separate per-CPU callback counts Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-10 23:37 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/12] Remove wrapper definitions for obsolete RCU update functions Paul E. McKenney
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=20190109211850.31599-10-paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).