From: "Paul E. McKenney" paulmck@kernel.org
This commit makes Tree SRCU updates independent of ->srcu_idx, then drop ->srcu_idx.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney paulmck@kernel.org Cc: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Cc: Andrii Nakryiko andrii@kernel.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org Cc: Kent Overstreet kent.overstreet@linux.dev Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng boqun.feng@gmail.com --- include/linux/srcutree.h | 1 - kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/srcutree.h b/include/linux/srcutree.h index 1b01ced61a45..6b7eba59f384 100644 --- a/include/linux/srcutree.h +++ b/include/linux/srcutree.h @@ -100,7 +100,6 @@ struct srcu_usage { * Per-SRCU-domain structure, similar in function to rcu_state. */ struct srcu_struct { - unsigned int srcu_idx; /* Current rdr array element. */ struct srcu_ctr __percpu *srcu_ctrp; struct srcu_data __percpu *sda; /* Per-CPU srcu_data array. */ struct lockdep_map dep_map; diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c index 7efde1a2344e..247bdf42fb54 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c @@ -246,7 +246,6 @@ static int init_srcu_struct_fields(struct srcu_struct *ssp, bool is_static) ssp->srcu_sup->node = NULL; mutex_init(&ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_cb_mutex); mutex_init(&ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_gp_mutex); - ssp->srcu_idx = 0; ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_gp_seq = SRCU_GP_SEQ_INITIAL_VAL; ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_barrier_seq = 0; mutex_init(&ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_barrier_mutex); @@ -510,38 +509,39 @@ static bool srcu_readers_active_idx_check(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) * If the locks are the same as the unlocks, then there must have * been no readers on this index at some point in this function. * But there might be more readers, as a task might have read - * the current ->srcu_idx but not yet have incremented its CPU's + * the current ->srcu_ctrp but not yet have incremented its CPU's * ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks counter. In fact, it is possible * that most of the tasks have been preempted between fetching - * ->srcu_idx and incrementing ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks. And there - * could be almost (ULONG_MAX / sizeof(struct task_struct)) tasks - * in a system whose address space was fully populated with memory. - * Call this quantity Nt. + * ->srcu_ctrp and incrementing ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks. And + * there could be almost (ULONG_MAX / sizeof(struct task_struct)) + * tasks in a system whose address space was fully populated + * with memory. Call this quantity Nt. * - * So suppose that the updater is preempted at this point in the - * code for a long time. That now-preempted updater has already - * flipped ->srcu_idx (possibly during the preceding grace period), - * done an smp_mb() (again, possibly during the preceding grace - * period), and summed up the ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks counters. - * How many times can a given one of the aforementioned Nt tasks - * increment the old ->srcu_idx value's ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks - * counter, in the absence of nesting? + * So suppose that the updater is preempted at this + * point in the code for a long time. That now-preempted + * updater has already flipped ->srcu_ctrp (possibly during + * the preceding grace period), done an smp_mb() (again, + * possibly during the preceding grace period), and summed up + * the ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks counters. How many times + * can a given one of the aforementioned Nt tasks increment the + * old ->srcu_ctrp value's ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks counter, + * in the absence of nesting? * * It can clearly do so once, given that it has already fetched - * the old value of ->srcu_idx and is just about to use that + * the old value of ->srcu_ctrp and is just about to use that * value to index its increment of ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks. * But as soon as it leaves that SRCU read-side critical section, * it will increment ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks, which must - * follow the updater's above read from that same value. Thus, - * as soon the reading task does an smp_mb() and a later fetch from - * ->srcu_idx, that task will be guaranteed to get the new index. + * follow the updater's above read from that same value. Thus, + as soon the reading task does an smp_mb() and a later fetch from + * ->srcu_ctrp, that task will be guaranteed to get the new index. * Except that the increment of ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks * in __srcu_read_unlock() is after the smp_mb(), and the fetch - * from ->srcu_idx in __srcu_read_lock() is before the smp_mb(). - * Thus, that task might not see the new value of ->srcu_idx until + * from ->srcu_ctrp in __srcu_read_lock() is before the smp_mb(). + * Thus, that task might not see the new value of ->srcu_ctrp until * the -second- __srcu_read_lock(), which in turn means that this * task might well increment ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks for the - * old value of ->srcu_idx twice, not just once. + * old value of ->srcu_ctrp twice, not just once. * * However, it is important to note that a given smp_mb() takes * effect not just for the task executing it, but also for any @@ -1095,7 +1095,7 @@ static void srcu_funnel_gp_start(struct srcu_struct *ssp, struct srcu_data *sdp, /* * Wait until all readers counted by array index idx complete, but * loop an additional time if there is an expedited grace period pending. - * The caller must ensure that ->srcu_idx is not changed while checking. + * The caller must ensure that ->srcu_ctrp is not changed while checking. */ static bool try_check_zero(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, int trycount) { @@ -1113,14 +1113,14 @@ static bool try_check_zero(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, int trycount) }
/* - * Increment the ->srcu_idx counter so that future SRCU readers will + * Increment the ->srcu_ctrp counter so that future SRCU readers will * use the other rank of the ->srcu_(un)lock_count[] arrays. This allows * us to wait for pre-existing readers in a starvation-free manner. */ static void srcu_flip(struct srcu_struct *ssp) { /* - * Because the flip of ->srcu_idx is executed only if the + * Because the flip of ->srcu_ctrp is executed only if the * preceding call to srcu_readers_active_idx_check() found that * the ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_unlocks and ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_locks sums * matched and because that summing uses atomic_long_read(), @@ -1128,15 +1128,15 @@ static void srcu_flip(struct srcu_struct *ssp) * summing and the WRITE_ONCE() in this call to srcu_flip(). * This ordering ensures that if this updater saw a given reader's * increment from __srcu_read_lock(), that reader was using a value - * of ->srcu_idx from before the previous call to srcu_flip(), + * of ->srcu_ctrp from before the previous call to srcu_flip(), * which should be quite rare. This ordering thus helps forward * progress because the grace period could otherwise be delayed * by additional calls to __srcu_read_lock() using that old (soon - * to be new) value of ->srcu_idx. + * to be new) value of ->srcu_ctrp. * * This sum-equality check and ordering also ensures that if * a given call to __srcu_read_lock() uses the new value of - * ->srcu_idx, this updater's earlier scans cannot have seen + * ->srcu_ctrp, this updater's earlier scans cannot have seen * that reader's increments, which is all to the good, because * this grace period need not wait on that reader. After all, * if those earlier scans had seen that reader, there would have @@ -1151,7 +1151,6 @@ static void srcu_flip(struct srcu_struct *ssp) */ smp_mb(); /* E */ /* Pairs with B and C. */
- WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx, ssp->srcu_idx + 1); // Flip the counter. WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_ctrp, &ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[!(ssp->srcu_ctrp - &ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[0])]);
@@ -1466,8 +1465,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_srcu_expedited); * * Wait for the count to drain to zero of both indexes. To avoid the * possible starvation of synchronize_srcu(), it waits for the count of - * the index=((->srcu_idx & 1) ^ 1) to drain to zero at first, - * and then flip the srcu_idx and wait for the count of the other index. + * the index=!(ssp->srcu_ctrp - &ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[0]) to drain to zero + * at first, and then flip the ->srcu_ctrp and wait for the count of the + * other index. * * Can block; must be called from process context. * @@ -1693,7 +1693,7 @@ static void srcu_advance_state(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
/* * Because readers might be delayed for an extended period after - * fetching ->srcu_idx for their index, at any point in time there + * fetching ->srcu_ctrp for their index, at any point in time there * might well be readers using both idx=0 and idx=1. We therefore * need to wait for readers to clear from both index values before * invoking a callback. @@ -1721,7 +1721,7 @@ static void srcu_advance_state(struct srcu_struct *ssp) }
if (rcu_seq_state(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_gp_seq)) == SRCU_STATE_SCAN1) { - idx = 1 ^ (ssp->srcu_idx & 1); + idx = !(ssp->srcu_ctrp - &ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[0]); if (!try_check_zero(ssp, idx, 1)) { mutex_unlock(&ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_gp_mutex); return; /* readers present, retry later. */ @@ -1739,7 +1739,7 @@ static void srcu_advance_state(struct srcu_struct *ssp) * SRCU read-side critical sections are normally short, * so check at least twice in quick succession after a flip. */ - idx = 1 ^ (ssp->srcu_idx & 1); + idx = !(ssp->srcu_ctrp - &ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[0]); if (!try_check_zero(ssp, idx, 2)) { mutex_unlock(&ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_gp_mutex); return; /* readers present, retry later. */ @@ -1897,7 +1897,7 @@ void srcu_torture_stats_print(struct srcu_struct *ssp, char *tt, char *tf) int ss_state = READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_size_state); int ss_state_idx = ss_state;
- idx = ssp->srcu_idx & 0x1; + idx = ssp->srcu_ctrp - &ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[0]; if (ss_state < 0 || ss_state >= ARRAY_SIZE(srcu_size_state_name)) ss_state_idx = ARRAY_SIZE(srcu_size_state_name) - 1; pr_alert("%s%s Tree SRCU g%ld state %d (%s)",