29 Sep, 2011
14 commits
-
The purpose of rcu_needs_cpu_flush() was to iterate on pushing the
current grace period in order to help the current CPU enter dyntick-idle
mode. However, this can result in failures if the CPU starts entering
dyntick-idle mode, but then backs out. In this case, the call to
rcu_pending() from rcu_needs_cpu_flush() might end up announcing a
non-existing quiescent state.This commit therefore removes rcu_needs_cpu_flush() in favor of letting
the dyntick-idle machinery at the end of the softirq handler push the
loop along via its call to rcu_pending().Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
-
RCU boost threads start life at RCU_BOOST_PRIO, while others remain
at RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO. While here, change thread names to match other
kthreads, and adjust rcu_yield() to not override the priority set by
the user. This last change sets the stage for runtime changes to
priority in the -rt tree.Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
Create a separate lockdep class for the rt_mutex used for RCU priority
boosting and enable use of rt_mutex_lock() with irqs disabled. This
prevents RCU priority boosting from falling prey to deadlocks when
someone begins an RCU read-side critical section in preemptible state,
but releases it with an irq-disabled lock held.Unfortunately, the scheduler's runqueue and priority-inheritance locks
still must either completely enclose or be completely enclosed by any
overlapping RCU read-side critical section.This version removes a redundant local_irq_restore() noted by
Yong Zhang.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
It is possible for an RCU CPU stall to end just as it is detected, in
which case the current code will uselessly dump all CPU's stacks.
This commit therefore checks for this condition and refrains from
sending needless NMIs.And yes, the stall might also end just after we checked all CPUs and
tasks, but in that case we would at least have given some clue as
to which CPU/task was at fault.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
-
Commit 7765be (Fix RCU_BOOST race handling current->rcu_read_unlock_special)
introduced a new ->rcu_boosted field in the task structure. This is
redundant because the existing ->rcu_boost_mutex will be non-NULL at
any time that ->rcu_boosted is nonzero. Therefore, this commit removes
->rcu_boosted and tests ->rcu_boost_mutex instead.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
We only need to constrain the compiler if we are actually exiting
the top-level RCU read-side critical section. This commit therefore
moves the first barrier() cal in __rcu_read_unlock() to inside the
"if" statement, thus avoiding needless register flushes for inner
rcu_read_unlock() calls.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
There is often a delay between the time that a CPU passes through a
quiescent state and the time that this quiescent state is reported to the
RCU core. It is quite possible that the grace period ended before the
quiescent state could be reported, for example, some other CPU might have
deduced that this CPU passed through dyntick-idle mode. It is critically
important that quiescent state be counted only against the grace period
that was in effect at the time that the quiescent state was detected.Previously, this was handled by recording the number of the last grace
period to complete when passing through a quiescent state. The RCU
core then checks this number against the current value, and rejects
the quiescent state if there is a mismatch. However, one additional
possibility must be accounted for, namely that the quiescent state was
recorded after the prior grace period completed but before the current
grace period started. In this case, the RCU core must reject the
quiescent state, but the recorded number will match. This is handled
when the CPU becomes aware of a new grace period -- at that point,
it invalidates any prior quiescent state.This works, but is a bit indirect. The new approach records the current
grace period, and the RCU core checks to see (1) that this is still the
current grace period and (2) that this grace period has not yet ended.
This approach simplifies reasoning about correctness, and this commit
changes over to this new approach.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
Add trace events to record grace-period start and end, quiescent states,
CPUs noticing grace-period start and end, grace-period initialization,
call_rcu() invocation, tasks blocking in RCU read-side critical sections,
tasks exiting those same critical sections, force_quiescent_state()
detection of dyntick-idle and offline CPUs, CPUs entering and leaving
dyntick-idle mode (except from NMIs), CPUs coming online and going
offline, and CPUs being kicked for staying in dyntick-idle mode for too
long (as in many weeks, even on 32-bit systems).Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenneyrcu: Add the rcu flavor to callback trace events
The earlier trace events for registering RCU callbacks and for invoking
them did not include the RCU flavor (rcu_bh, rcu_preempt, or rcu_sched).
This commit adds the RCU flavor to those trace events.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
-
Add event-trace markers to TREE_RCU kthreads to allow including these
kthread's CPU time in the utilization calculations.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
We now have kthreads only for flavors of RCU that support boosting,
so update the now-misleading comments accordingly.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
In order to allow event tracing to distinguish between flavors of
RCU, we need those names in the relevant RCU data structures. TINY_RCU
has avoided them for memory-footprint reasons, so add them only if
CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
Pull the code that waits for an RCU grace period into a single function,
which is then called by synchronize_rcu() and friends in the case of
TREE_RCU and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, and from rcu_barrier() and friends in
the case of TINY_RCU and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
-
There are a number of cases where the RCU can find additional work
for the per-CPU kthread within the context of that per-CPU kthread.
In such cases, the per-CPU kthread is already running, so attempting
to wake itself up does nothing except waste CPU cycles. This commit
therefore checks to see if it is in the per-CPU kthread context,
omitting the wakeup in this case.Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
Commit a26ac2455ffc (move TREE_RCU from softirq to kthread) added
per-CPU kthreads. However, kthread creation uses kthread_create(), which
can put the kthread's stack and task struct on the wrong NUMA node.
Therefore, use kthread_create_on_node() instead of kthread_create()
so that the stacks and task structs are placed on the correct NUMA node.A similar change was carried out in commit 94dcf29a11b3 (kthread:
use kthread_create_on_node()).Also change rcutorture's priority-boost-test kthread creation.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet
CC: Tejun Heo
CC: Rusty Russell
CC: Andrew Morton
CC: Andi Kleen
CC: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
21 Jul, 2011
2 commits
-
The rcu_read_unlock_special() function relies on in_irq() to exclude
scheduler activity from interrupt level. This fails because exit_irq()
can invoke the scheduler after clearing the preempt_count() bits that
in_irq() uses to determine that it is at interrupt level. This situation
can result in failures as follows:$task IRQ SoftIRQ
rcu_read_lock()
/* do stuff */
|= UNLOCK_BLOCKED
rcu_read_unlock()
--t->rcu_read_lock_nestingirq_enter();
/* do stuff, don't use RCU */
irq_exit();
sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET);
invoke_softirq()ttwu();
spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock)
rcu_read_lock();
/* do stuff */
rcu_read_unlock();
rcu_read_unlock_special()
rcu_report_exp_rnp()
ttwu()
spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock) /* deadlock */rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
Ed can simply trigger this 'easy' because invoke_softirq() immediately
does a ttwu() of ksoftirqd/# instead of doing the in-place softirq stuff
first, but even without that the above happens.Cure this by also excluding softirqs from the
rcu_read_unlock_special() handler and ensuring the force_irqthreads
ksoftirqd/# wakeup is done from full softirq context.[ Alternatively, delaying the ->rcu_read_lock_nesting decrement
until after the special handling would make the thing more robust
in the face of interrupts as well. And there is a separate patch
for that. ]Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Reported-and-tested-by: Ed Tomlinson
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
The addition of RCU read-side critical sections within runqueue and
priority-inheritance lock critical sections introduced some deadlock
cycles, for example, involving interrupts from __rcu_read_unlock()
where the interrupt handlers call wake_up(). This situation can cause
the instance of __rcu_read_unlock() invoked from interrupt to do some
of the processing that would otherwise have been carried out by the
task-level instance of __rcu_read_unlock(). When the interrupt-level
instance of __rcu_read_unlock() is called with a scheduler lock held
from interrupt-entry/exit situations where in_irq() returns false,
deadlock can result.This commit resolves these deadlocks by using negative values of
the per-task ->rcu_read_lock_nesting counter to indicate that an
instance of __rcu_read_unlock() is in flight, which in turn prevents
instances from interrupt handlers from doing any special processing.
This patch is inspired by Steven Rostedt's earlier patch that similarly
made __rcu_read_unlock() guard against interrupt-mediated recursion
(see https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/15/326), but this commit refines
Steven's approach to avoid the need for preemption disabling on the
__rcu_read_unlock() fastpath and to also avoid the need for manipulating
a separate per-CPU variable.This patch avoids need for preempt_disable() by instead using negative
values of the per-task ->rcu_read_lock_nesting counter. Note that nested
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs are still permitted, but they will
never see ->rcu_read_lock_nesting go to zero, and will therefore never
invoke rcu_read_unlock_special(), thus preventing them from seeing the
RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED bit should it be set in ->rcu_read_unlock_special.
This patch also adds a check for ->rcu_read_unlock_special being negative
in rcu_check_callbacks(), thus preventing the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS
bit from being set should a scheduling-clock interrupt occur while
__rcu_read_unlock() is exiting from an outermost RCU read-side critical
section.Of course, __rcu_read_unlock() can be preempted during the time that
->rcu_read_lock_nesting is negative. This could result in the setting
of the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED bit after __rcu_read_unlock() checks it,
and would also result it this task being queued on the corresponding
rcu_node structure's blkd_tasks list. Therefore, some later RCU read-side
critical section would enter rcu_read_unlock_special() to clean up --
which could result in deadlock if that critical section happened to be in
the scheduler where the runqueue or priority-inheritance locks were held.This situation is dealt with by making rcu_preempt_note_context_switch()
check for negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting, thus refraining from
queuing the task (and from setting RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED) if we are
already exiting from the outermost RCU read-side critical section (in
other words, we really are no longer actually in that RCU read-side
critical section). In addition, rcu_preempt_note_context_switch()
invokes rcu_read_unlock_special() to carry out the cleanup in this case,
which clears out the ->rcu_read_unlock_special bits and dequeues the task
(if necessary), in turn avoiding needless delay of the current RCU grace
period and needless RCU priority boosting.It is still illegal to call rcu_read_unlock() while holding a scheduler
lock if the prior RCU read-side critical section has ever had either
preemption or irqs enabled. However, the common use case is legal,
namely where then entire RCU read-side critical section executes with
irqs disabled, for example, when the scheduler lock is held across the
entire lifetime of the RCU read-side critical section.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
20 Jul, 2011
3 commits
-
Given some common flag combinations, particularly -Os, gcc will inline
rcu_read_unlock_special() despite its being in an unlikely() clause.
Use noinline to prohibit this misoptimization.In addition, move the second barrier() in __rcu_read_unlock() so that
it is not on the common-case code path. This will allow the compiler to
generate better code for the common-case path through __rcu_read_unlock().Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers -
The RCU_BOOST commits for TREE_PREEMPT_RCU introduced an other-task
write to a new RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED bit in the task_struct structure's
->rcu_read_unlock_special field, but, as noted by Steven Rostedt, without
correctly synchronizing all accesses to ->rcu_read_unlock_special.
This could result in bits in ->rcu_read_unlock_special being spuriously
set and cleared due to conflicting accesses, which in turn could result
in deadlocks between the rcu_node structure's ->lock and the scheduler's
rq and pi locks. These deadlocks would result from RCU incorrectly
believing that the just-ended RCU read-side critical section had been
preempted and/or boosted. If that RCU read-side critical section was
executed with either rq or pi locks held, RCU's ensuing (incorrect)
calls to the scheduler would cause the scheduler to attempt to once
again acquire the rq and pi locks, resulting in deadlock. More complex
deadlock cycles are also possible, involving multiple rq and pi locks
as well as locks from multiple rcu_node structures.This commit fixes synchronization by creating ->rcu_boosted field in
task_struct that is accessed and modified only when holding the ->lock
in the rcu_node structure on which the task is queued (on that rcu_node
structure's ->blkd_tasks list). This results in tasks accessing only
their own current->rcu_read_unlock_special fields, making unsynchronized
access once again legal, and keeping the rcu_read_unlock() fastpath free
of atomic instructions and memory barriers.The reason that the rcu_read_unlock() fastpath does not need to access
the new current->rcu_boosted field is that this new field cannot
be non-zero unless the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED bit is set in the
current->rcu_read_unlock_special field. Therefore, rcu_read_unlock()
need only test current->rcu_read_unlock_special: if that is zero, then
current->rcu_boosted must also be zero.This bug does not affect TINY_PREEMPT_RCU because this implementation
of RCU accesses current->rcu_read_unlock_special with irqs disabled,
thus preventing races on the !SMP systems that TINY_PREEMPT_RCU runs on.Maybe-reported-by: Dave Jones
Maybe-reported-by: Sergey Senozhatsky
Reported-by: Steven Rostedt
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt -
PREEMPT_RCU read-side critical sections blocking an expedited grace
period invoke rcu_report_exp_rnp(). When the last such critical section
has completed, rcu_report_exp_rnp() invokes the scheduler to wake up the
task that invoked synchronize_rcu_expedited() -- needlessly holding the
root rcu_node structure's lock while doing so, thus needlessly providing
a way for RCU and the scheduler to deadlock.This commit therefore releases the root rcu_node structure's lock before
calling wake_up().Reported-by: Ed Tomlinson
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
13 Jul, 2011
1 commit
-
Under some rare but real combinations of configuration parameters, RCU
callbacks are posted during early boot that use kernel facilities that
are not yet initialized. Therefore, when these callbacks are invoked,
hard hangs and crashes ensue. This commit therefore prevents RCU
callbacks from being invoked until after the scheduler is fully up and
running, as in after multiple tasks have been spawned.It might well turn out that a better approach is to identify the specific
RCU callbacks that are causing this problem, but that discussion will
wait until such time as someone really needs an RCU callback to be invoked
(as opposed to merely registered) during early boot.Reported-by: julie Sullivan
Reported-by: RKK
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Tested-by: julie Sullivan
Tested-by: RKK
17 Jun, 2011
1 commit
-
The commit "use softirq instead of kthreads except when RCU_BOOST=y"
just applied #ifdef in place. This commit is a cleanup that moves
the newly #ifdef'ed code to the header file kernel/rcutree_plugin.h.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
16 Jun, 2011
1 commit
-
This patch #ifdefs RCU kthreads out of the kernel unless RCU_BOOST=y,
thus eliminating context-switch overhead if RCU priority boosting has
not been configured.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
15 Jun, 2011
2 commits
-
Commit a26ac2455ffcf3(rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq to kthread)
introduced performance regression. In an AIM7 test, this commit degraded
performance by about 40%.The commit runs rcu callbacks in a kthread instead of softirq. We observed
high rate of context switch which is caused by this. Out test system has
64 CPUs and HZ is 1000, so we saw more than 64k context switch per second
which is caused by RCU's per-CPU kthread. A trace showed that most of
the time the RCU per-CPU kthread doesn't actually handle any callbacks,
but instead just does a very small amount of work handling grace periods.
This means that RCU's per-CPU kthreads are making the scheduler do quite
a bit of work in order to allow a very small amount of RCU-related
processing to be done.Alex Shi's analysis determined that this slowdown is due to lock
contention within the scheduler. Unfortunately, as Peter Zijlstra points
out, the scheduler's real-time semantics require global action, which
means that this contention is inherent in real-time scheduling. (Yes,
perhaps someone will come up with a workaround -- otherwise, -rt is not
going to do well on large SMP systems -- but this patch will work around
this issue in the meantime. And "the meantime" might well be forever.)This patch therefore re-introduces softirq processing to RCU, but only
for core RCU work. RCU callbacks are still executed in kthread context,
so that only a small amount of RCU work runs in softirq context in the
common case. This should minimize ksoftirqd execution, allowing us to
skip boosting of ksoftirqd for CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=y kernels.Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li
Tested-by: "Alex,Shi"
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
Make the functions creating the kthreads wake them up. Leverage the
fact that the per-node and boost kthreads can run anywhere, thus
dispensing with the need to wake them up once the incoming CPU has
gone fully online.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Tested-by: Daniel J Blueman
31 May, 2011
1 commit
-
Commit cc3ce5176d83 (rcu: Start RCU kthreads in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
state) fudges a sleeping task' state, resulting in the scheduler seeing
a TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE task going to sleep, but a TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
task waking up. The result is unbalanced load calculation.The problem that patch tried to address is that the RCU threads could
stay in UNINTERRUPTIBLE state for quite a while and triggering the hung
task detector due to on-demand wake-ups.Cure the problem differently by always giving the tasks at least one
wake-up once the CPU is fully up and running, this will kick them out of
the initial UNINTERRUPTIBLE state and into the regular INTERRUPTIBLE
wait state.[ The alternative would be teaching kthread_create() to start threads as
INTERRUPTIBLE but that needs a tad more thought. ]Reported-by: Damien Wyart
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1306755291.1200.2872.camel@twins
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
28 May, 2011
2 commits
-
Upon creation, kthreads are in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, which can
result in softlockup warnings. Because some of RCU's kthreads can
legitimately be idle indefinitely, start them in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
state in order to avoid those warnings.Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Tested-by: Yinghai Lu
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar -
It is not necessary to use waitqueues for the RCU kthreads because
we always know exactly which thread is to be awakened. In addition,
wake_up() only issues an actual wakeup when there is a thread waiting on
the queue, which was why there was an extra explicit wake_up_process()
to get the RCU kthreads started.Eliminating the waitqueues (and wake_up()) in favor of wake_up_process()
eliminates the need for the initial wake_up_process() and also shrinks
the data structure size a bit. The wakeup logic is placed in a new
rcu_wait() macro.Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
27 May, 2011
1 commit
-
(Note: this was reverted, and is now being re-applied in pieces, with
this being the fifth and final piece. See below for the reason that
it is now felt to be safe to re-apply this.)Commit d09b62d fixed grace-period synchronization, but left some smp_mb()
invocations in rcu_process_callbacks() that are no longer needed, but
sheer paranoia prevented them from being removed. This commit removes
them and provides a proof of correctness in their absence. It also adds
a memory barrier to rcu_report_qs_rsp() immediately before the update to
rsp->completed in order to handle the theoretical possibility that the
compiler or CPU might move massive quantities of code into a lock-based
critical section. This also proves that the sheer paranoia was not
entirely unjustified, at least from a theoretical point of view.In addition, the old dyntick-idle synchronization depended on the fact
that grace periods were many milliseconds in duration, so that it could
be assumed that no dyntick-idle CPU could reorder a memory reference
across an entire grace period. Unfortunately for this design, the
addition of expedited grace periods breaks this assumption, which has
the unfortunate side-effect of requiring atomic operations in the
functions that track dyntick-idle state for RCU. (There is some hope
that the algorithms used in user-level RCU might be applied here, but
some work is required to handle the NMIs that user-space applications
can happily ignore. For the short term, better safe than sorry.)This proof assumes that neither compiler nor CPU will allow a lock
acquisition and release to be reordered, as doing so can result in
deadlock. The proof is as follows:1. A given CPU declares a quiescent state under the protection of
its leaf rcu_node's lock.2. If there is more than one level of rcu_node hierarchy, the
last CPU to declare a quiescent state will also acquire the
->lock of the next rcu_node up in the hierarchy, but only
after releasing the lower level's lock. The acquisition of this
lock clearly cannot occur prior to the acquisition of the leaf
node's lock.3. Step 2 repeats until we reach the root rcu_node structure.
Please note again that only one lock is held at a time through
this process. The acquisition of the root rcu_node's ->lock
must occur after the release of that of the leaf rcu_node.4. At this point, we set the ->completed field in the rcu_state
structure in rcu_report_qs_rsp(). However, if the rcu_node
hierarchy contains only one rcu_node, then in theory the code
preceding the quiescent state could leak into the critical
section. We therefore precede the update of ->completed with a
memory barrier. All CPUs will therefore agree that any updates
preceding any report of a quiescent state will have happened
before the update of ->completed.5. Regardless of whether a new grace period is needed, rcu_start_gp()
will propagate the new value of ->completed to all of the leaf
rcu_node structures, under the protection of each rcu_node's ->lock.
If a new grace period is needed immediately, this propagation
will occur in the same critical section that ->completed was
set in, but courtesy of the memory barrier in #4 above, is still
seen to follow any pre-quiescent-state activity.6. When a given CPU invokes __rcu_process_gp_end(), it becomes
aware of the end of the old grace period and therefore makes
any RCU callbacks that were waiting on that grace period eligible
for invocation.If this CPU is the same one that detected the end of the grace
period, and if there is but a single rcu_node in the hierarchy,
we will still be in the single critical section. In this case,
the memory barrier in step #4 guarantees that all callbacks will
be seen to execute after each CPU's quiescent state.On the other hand, if this is a different CPU, it will acquire
the leaf rcu_node's ->lock, and will again be serialized after
each CPU's quiescent state for the old grace period.On the strength of this proof, this commit therefore removes the memory
barriers from rcu_process_callbacks() and adds one to rcu_report_qs_rsp().
The effect is to reduce the number of memory barriers by one and to
reduce the frequency of execution from about once per scheduling tick
per CPU to once per grace period.This was reverted do to hangs found during testing by Yinghai Lu and
Ingo Molnar. Frederic Weisbecker supplied Yinghai with tracing that
located the underlying problem, and Frederic also provided the fix.The underlying problem was that the HARDIRQ_ENTER() macro from
lib/locking-selftest.c invoked irq_enter(), which in turn invokes
rcu_irq_enter(), but HARDIRQ_EXIT() invoked __irq_exit(), which
does not invoke rcu_irq_exit(). This situation resulted in calls
to rcu_irq_enter() that were not balanced by the required calls to
rcu_irq_exit(). Therefore, after these locking selftests completed,
RCU's dyntick-idle nesting count was a large number (for example,
72), which caused RCU to to conclude that the affected CPU was not in
dyntick-idle mode when in fact it was.RCU would therefore incorrectly wait for this dyntick-idle CPU, resulting
in hangs.In contrast, with Frederic's patch, which replaces the irq_enter()
in HARDIRQ_ENTER() with an __irq_enter(), these tests don't ever call
either rcu_irq_enter() or rcu_irq_exit(), which works because the CPU
running the test is already marked as not being in dyntick-idle mode.
This means that the rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() calls and RCU
then has no problem working out which CPUs are in dyntick-idle mode and
which are not.The reason that the imbalance was not noticed before the barrier patch
was applied is that the old implementation of rcu_enter_nohz() ignored
the nesting depth. This could still result in delays, but much shorter
ones. Whenever there was a delay, RCU would IPI the CPU with the
unbalanced nesting level, which would eventually result in rcu_enter_nohz()
being called, which in turn would force RCU to see that the CPU was in
dyntick-idle mode.The reason that very few people noticed the problem is that the mismatched
irq_enter() vs. __irq_exit() occured only when the kernel was built with
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett
20 May, 2011
1 commit
-
This reverts commit e59fb3120becfb36b22ddb8bd27d065d3cdca499.
This reversion was due to (extreme) boot-time slowdowns on SPARC seen by
Yinghai Lu and on x86 by Ingo
.
This is a non-trivial reversion due to intervening commits.Conflicts:
Documentation/RCU/trace.txt
kernel/rcutree.cSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar
08 May, 2011
1 commit
-
Avoid calling into the scheduler while holding core RCU locks. This
allows rcu_read_unlock() to be called while holding the runqueue locks,
but only as long as there was no chance of the RCU read-side critical
section having been preempted. (Otherwise, if RCU priority boosting
is enabled, rcu_read_unlock() might call into the scheduler in order to
unboost itself, which might allows self-deadlock on the runqueue locks
within the scheduler.)Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
06 May, 2011
10 commits
-
The "preemptible" spelling is preferable. May as well fix it.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett -
Using __rcu_read_lock() in place of rcu_read_lock() leaves any debug
state as it really should be, namely with the lock still held.Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett -
The rcu_initiate_boost_trace() function mis-attributed refusals to
initiate RCU priority boosting that were in fact due to its not yet
being time to boost. This patch fixes the faulty comparison.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
Add tracing to help debugging situations when RCU's kthreads are not
running but are supposed to be.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett -
Includes total number of tasks boosted, number boosted on behalf of each
of normal and expedited grace periods, and statistics on attempts to
initiate boosting that failed for various reasons.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett -
The scheduler has had some heartburn in the past when too many real-time
kthreads were affinitied to the outgoing CPU. So, this commit lightens
the load by forcing the per-rcu_node and the boost kthreads off of the
outgoing CPU. Note that RCU's per-CPU kthread remains on the outgoing
CPU until the bitter end, as it must in order to preserve correctness.Also avoid disabling hardirqs across calls to set_cpus_allowed_ptr(),
given that this function can block.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney -
Add priority boosting for TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, similar to that for
TINY_PREEMPT_RCU. This is enabled by the default-off RCU_BOOST
kernel parameter. The priority to which to boost preempted
RCU readers is controlled by the RCU_BOOST_PRIO kernel parameter
(defaulting to real-time priority 1) and the time to wait before
boosting the readers who are blocking a given grace period is
controlled by the RCU_BOOST_DELAY kernel parameter (defaulting to
500 milliseconds).Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett -
If RCU priority boosting is to be meaningful, callback invocation must
be boosted in addition to preempted RCU readers. Otherwise, in presence
of CPU real-time threads, the grace period ends, but the callbacks don't
get invoked. If the callbacks don't get invoked, the associated memory
doesn't get freed, so the system is still subject to OOM.But it is not reasonable to priority-boost RCU_SOFTIRQ, so this commit
moves the callback invocations to a kthread, which can be boosted easily.Also add comments and properly synchronized all accesses to
rcu_cpu_kthread_task, as suggested by Lai Jiangshan.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett -
Combine the current TREE_PREEMPT_RCU ->blocked_tasks[] lists in the
rcu_node structure into a single ->blkd_tasks list with ->gp_tasks
and ->exp_tasks tail pointers. This is in preparation for RCU priority
boosting, which will add a third dimension to the combinatorial explosion
in the ->blocked_tasks[] case, but simply a third pointer in the new
->blkd_tasks case.Also update documentation to reflect blocked_tasks[] merge
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett -
Commit d09b62d fixed grace-period synchronization, but left some smp_mb()
invocations in rcu_process_callbacks() that are no longer needed, but
sheer paranoia prevented them from being removed. This commit removes
them and provides a proof of correctness in their absence. It also adds
a memory barrier to rcu_report_qs_rsp() immediately before the update to
rsp->completed in order to handle the theoretical possibility that the
compiler or CPU might move massive quantities of code into a lock-based
critical section. This also proves that the sheer paranoia was not
entirely unjustified, at least from a theoretical point of view.In addition, the old dyntick-idle synchronization depended on the fact
that grace periods were many milliseconds in duration, so that it could
be assumed that no dyntick-idle CPU could reorder a memory reference
across an entire grace period. Unfortunately for this design, the
addition of expedited grace periods breaks this assumption, which has
the unfortunate side-effect of requiring atomic operations in the
functions that track dyntick-idle state for RCU. (There is some hope
that the algorithms used in user-level RCU might be applied here, but
some work is required to handle the NMIs that user-space applications
can happily ignore. For the short term, better safe than sorry.)This proof assumes that neither compiler nor CPU will allow a lock
acquisition and release to be reordered, as doing so can result in
deadlock. The proof is as follows:1. A given CPU declares a quiescent state under the protection of
its leaf rcu_node's lock.2. If there is more than one level of rcu_node hierarchy, the
last CPU to declare a quiescent state will also acquire the
->lock of the next rcu_node up in the hierarchy, but only
after releasing the lower level's lock. The acquisition of this
lock clearly cannot occur prior to the acquisition of the leaf
node's lock.3. Step 2 repeats until we reach the root rcu_node structure.
Please note again that only one lock is held at a time through
this process. The acquisition of the root rcu_node's ->lock
must occur after the release of that of the leaf rcu_node.4. At this point, we set the ->completed field in the rcu_state
structure in rcu_report_qs_rsp(). However, if the rcu_node
hierarchy contains only one rcu_node, then in theory the code
preceding the quiescent state could leak into the critical
section. We therefore precede the update of ->completed with a
memory barrier. All CPUs will therefore agree that any updates
preceding any report of a quiescent state will have happened
before the update of ->completed.5. Regardless of whether a new grace period is needed, rcu_start_gp()
will propagate the new value of ->completed to all of the leaf
rcu_node structures, under the protection of each rcu_node's ->lock.
If a new grace period is needed immediately, this propagation
will occur in the same critical section that ->completed was
set in, but courtesy of the memory barrier in #4 above, is still
seen to follow any pre-quiescent-state activity.6. When a given CPU invokes __rcu_process_gp_end(), it becomes
aware of the end of the old grace period and therefore makes
any RCU callbacks that were waiting on that grace period eligible
for invocation.If this CPU is the same one that detected the end of the grace
period, and if there is but a single rcu_node in the hierarchy,
we will still be in the single critical section. In this case,
the memory barrier in step #4 guarantees that all callbacks will
be seen to execute after each CPU's quiescent state.On the other hand, if this is a different CPU, it will acquire
the leaf rcu_node's ->lock, and will again be serialized after
each CPU's quiescent state for the old grace period.On the strength of this proof, this commit therefore removes the memory
barriers from rcu_process_callbacks() and adds one to rcu_report_qs_rsp().
The effect is to reduce the number of memory barriers by one and to
reduce the frequency of execution from about once per scheduling tick
per CPU to once per grace period.Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett
