diff options
author | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2011-08-24 16:52:09 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2011-09-28 21:38:49 -0700 |
commit | afe24b122eb6edb5f1cb942570ac8d766105c7fc (patch) | |
tree | c1f9e2fcbcf2d374f36ee3bfc45babf576cb6246 /kernel/rcutree.c | |
parent | e90c53d3e238dd0b7b02964370e8fece1778df96 (diff) | |
download | lwn-afe24b122eb6edb5f1cb942570ac8d766105c7fc.tar.gz lwn-afe24b122eb6edb5f1cb942570ac8d766105c7fc.zip |
rcu: Move propagation of ->completed from rcu_start_gp() to rcu_report_qs_rsp()
It is possible for the CPU that noted the end of the prior grace period
to not need a new one, and therefore to decide to propagate ->completed
throughout the rcu_node tree without starting another grace period.
However, in so doing, it releases the root rcu_node structure's lock,
which can allow some other CPU to start another grace period. The first
CPU will be propagating ->completed in parallel with the second CPU
initializing the rcu_node tree for the new grace period. In theory
this is harmless, but in practice we need to keep things simple.
This commit therefore moves the propagation of ->completed to
rcu_report_qs_rsp(), and refrains from marking the old grace period
as having been completed until it has finished doing this. This
prevents anyone from starting a new grace period concurrently with
marking the old grace period as having been completed.
Of course, the optimization where a CPU needing a new grace period
doesn't bother marking the old one completed is still in effect:
In that case, the marking happens implicitly as part of initializing
the new grace period.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/rcutree.c')
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/rcutree.c | 71 |
1 files changed, 51 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c index e75df0c93abd..e234eb92a177 100644 --- a/kernel/rcutree.c +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c @@ -842,28 +842,24 @@ rcu_start_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags) struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); if (!rcu_scheduler_fully_active || - !cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp) || - rsp->fqs_active) { - if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active && - cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp)) - rsp->fqs_need_gp = 1; - if (rnp->completed == rsp->completed) { - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); - return; - } - raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled. */ + !cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp)) { + /* + * Either the scheduler hasn't yet spawned the first + * non-idle task or this CPU does not need another + * grace period. Either way, don't start a new grace + * period. + */ + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); + return; + } + if (rsp->fqs_active) { /* - * Propagate new ->completed value to rcu_node structures - * so that other CPUs don't have to wait until the start - * of the next grace period to process their callbacks. + * This CPU needs a grace period, but force_quiescent_state() + * is running. Tell it to start one on this CPU's behalf. */ - rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) { - raw_spin_lock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs already disabled. */ - rnp->completed = rsp->completed; - raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled. */ - } - local_irq_restore(flags); + rsp->fqs_need_gp = 1; + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); return; } @@ -947,6 +943,8 @@ static void rcu_report_qs_rsp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags) __releases(rcu_get_root(rsp)->lock) { unsigned long gp_duration; + struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); + struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda); WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)); @@ -958,7 +956,40 @@ static void rcu_report_qs_rsp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags) gp_duration = jiffies - rsp->gp_start; if (gp_duration > rsp->gp_max) rsp->gp_max = gp_duration; - rsp->completed = rsp->gpnum; + + /* + * We know the grace period is complete, but to everyone else + * it appears to still be ongoing. But it is also the case + * that to everyone else it looks like there is nothing that + * they can do to advance the grace period. It is therefore + * safe for us to drop the lock in order to mark the grace + * period as completed in all of the rcu_node structures. + * + * But if this CPU needs another grace period, it will take + * care of this while initializing the next grace period. + * We use RCU_WAIT_TAIL instead of the usual RCU_DONE_TAIL + * because the callbacks have not yet been advanced: Those + * callbacks are waiting on the grace period that just now + * completed. + */ + if (*rdp->nxttail[RCU_WAIT_TAIL] == NULL) { + raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled. */ + + /* + * Propagate new ->completed value to rcu_node structures + * so that other CPUs don't have to wait until the start + * of the next grace period to process their callbacks. + */ + rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) { + raw_spin_lock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs already disabled. */ + rnp->completed = rsp->gpnum; + raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled. */ + } + rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); + raw_spin_lock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs already disabled. */ + } + + rsp->completed = rsp->gpnum; /* Declare the grace period complete. */ trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, rsp->completed, "end"); rsp->signaled = RCU_GP_IDLE; rcu_start_gp(rsp, flags); /* releases root node's rnp->lock. */ |