From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@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, 19 Mar 2021 16:38:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210319233848.GV2696@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210319221040.GC814853@lothringen>
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:10:40PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:51:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:58:54PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > It's all a matter of personal taste but if I may suggest some namespace
> > > modifications:
> > >
> > > get_state_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_poll_start_raw()
> > > start_poll_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_poll_start()
> > > poll_state_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_poll()
> > > cond_synchronize_rcu() -> synchronize_rcu_cond()
> > >
> > > But it's up to you really.
> >
> > I am concerned about starting anything "synchronize_rcu" if that
> > thing doesn't unconditionally wait for a grace period. "What do
> > you mean that there was no grace period? Don't you see that call to
> > synchronize_rcu_poll_start_raw()???"
>
> I see, that could indeed be confusing.
>
> > This objection doesn't apply to cond_synchronize_rcu(), but it is
> > already in use, so any name change should be worked with the users.
> > All two of them. ;-)
>
> Probably not worth it. We have cond_resched() as a schedule() counterpart
> for a reference after all.
Good point!
> > > > /**
> > > > + * 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()
> > >
> > > It may be worth noting that calling start_poll_synchronize_rcu() and then
> > > pass the cookie to cond_synchronize_rcu() soon after may end up waiting for
> > > one more grace period.
> >
> > You mean this sequence of events?
> >
> > 1. cookie = start_poll_synchronize_rcu()
> >
> > 2. The grace period corresponding to cookie is almost over...
> >
> > 3. cond_synchronize_rcu() checks the cookie and sees that the
> > grace period has not yet expired.
> >
> > 4. The grace period corresponding to cookie completes.
> >
> > 5. Someone else starts a grace period.
> >
> > 6. cond_synchronize_rcu() invokes synchronize_rcu(), which waits
> > for the just-started grace period plus another grace period.
> > Thus, there has been no fewer than three full grace periods
> > between the call to start_poll_synchronize_rcu() and the
> > return from cond_synchronize_rcu().
> >
> > Yes, this can happen! And it can be worse, for example, it is quite
> > possible that cond_synchronize_rcu() would be preempted for multiple
> > grace periods at step 5, in which case it would still wait for almost
> > two additional grace periods.
> >
> > Or are you thinking of something else?
>
> I didn't even think that far.
> My scenario was:
>
> 1. cookie = start_poll_synchronize_rcu()
>
>
> 2. cond_synchronize_rcu() checks the cookie and sees that the
> grace period has not yet expired. So it calls synchronize_rcu()
> which queues a callback.
>
> 3. The grace period for the cookie eventually completes.
>
> 4. The callback queued in 2. gets assigned a new grace period number.
> That new grace period starts.
>
> 5. The new grace period completes and synchronize_rcu() returns.
>
>
> But I think this is due to some deep misunderstanding from my end.
You mean like this?
oldstate = start_poll_synchronize_rcu();
// Why wait? Beat the rush!!!
cond_synchronize_rcu(oldstate);
This would be a bit silly (why not just call synchronize_rcu()?),
and yes, this would unconditionally get you an extra RCU grace period.
Then again, any call to cond_synchronize_rcu() before the desired grace
period has expired will get you an extra grace period, and maybe more.
So a given use case either needs to not care about the added latency
or have a high probability of invoking cond_synchronize_rcu() after
the desired grace period has expired.
> > > > + * If a full RCU grace period has elapsed since the earlier call from
> > > > + * which oldstate was obtained, return @true, otherwise return @false.
> > > > + * Otherwise, invoke synchronize_rcu() to wait for a full grace period.
> > >
> > > Rephrase suggestion for the last sentence:
> > >
> > > "In case of failure, it's up to the caller to try polling again later or
> > > invoke synchronize_rcu() to wait for a new full grace period to complete."
> >
> > How about like this?
> >
> > /**
> > * poll_state_synchronize_rcu - Conditionally wait for an RCU grace period
> > *
> > * @oldstate: return from call to get_state_synchronize_rcu() or start_poll_synchronize_rcu()
> > *
> > * If a full RCU grace period has elapsed since the earlier call from
> > * which oldstate was obtained, return @true, otherwise return @false.
> > * If @false is returned, it is the caller's responsibilty to invoke this
> > * function later on until it does return @true. Alternatively, the caller
> > * can explicitly wait for a grace period, for example, by passing @oldstate
> > * to cond_synchronize_rcu() or by directly invoking synchronize_rcu().
>
> Yes very nice!
You got it!
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-19 23:39 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
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 [this message]
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=20210319233848.GV2696@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--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=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).