Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 160
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 12 12月, 2011 4 次提交
    • T
      rcu: Remove redundant return from rcu_report_exp_rnp() · a0f8eefb
      由 Thomas Gleixner 提交于 
      Empty void functions do not need "return", so this commit removes it
from rcu_report_exp_rnp().
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      a0f8eefb
    • T
      rcu: Omit self-awaken when setting up expedited grace period · b40d293e
      由 Thomas Gleixner 提交于 
      When setting up an expedited grace period, if there were no readers, the
task will awaken itself.  This commit removes this useless self-awakening.
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      b40d293e
    • P
      rcu: Make synchronize_sched_expedited() better at work sharing · 7077714e
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      When synchronize_sched_expedited() takes its second and subsequent
snapshots of sync_sched_expedited_started, it subtracts 1.  This
means that the concurrent caller of synchronize_sched_expedited()
that incremented to that value sees our successful completion, it
will not be able to take advantage of it.  This restriction is
pointless, given that our full expedited grace period would have
happened after the other guy started, and thus should be able to
serve as a proxy for the other guy successfully executing
try_stop_cpus().

This commit therefore removes the subtraction of 1.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
      7077714e
    • P
      rcu: Avoid RCU-preempt expedited grace-period botch · 389abd48
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Because rcu_read_unlock_special() samples rcu_preempted_readers_exp(rnp)
after dropping rnp->lock, the following sequence of events is possible:

1.	Task A exits its RCU read-side critical section, and removes
	itself from the ->blkd_tasks list, releases rnp->lock, and is
	then preempted.  Task B remains on the ->blkd_tasks list, and
	blocks the current expedited grace period.

2.	Task B exits from its RCU read-side critical section and removes
	itself from the ->blkd_tasks list.  Because it is the last task
	blocking the current expedited grace period, it ends that
	expedited grace period.

3.	Task A resumes, and samples rcu_preempted_readers_exp(rnp) which
	of course indicates that nothing is blocking the nonexistent
	expedited grace period. Task A is again preempted.

4.	Some other CPU starts an expedited grace period.  There are several
	tasks blocking this expedited grace period queued on the
	same rcu_node structure that Task A was using in step 1 above.

5.	Task A examines its state and incorrectly concludes that it was
	the last task blocking the expedited grace period on the current
	rcu_node structure.  It therefore reports completion up the
	rcu_node tree.

6.	The expedited grace period can then incorrectly complete before
	the tasks blocked on this same rcu_node structure exit their
	RCU read-side critical sections.  Arbitrarily bad things happen.

This commit therefore takes a snapshot of rcu_preempted_readers_exp(rnp)
prior to dropping the lock, so that only the last task thinks that it is
the last task, thus avoiding the failure scenario laid out above.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
      389abd48
  3. 29 9月, 2011 14 次提交
  5. 21 7月, 2011 2 次提交
    • P
      softirq,rcu: Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity · ec433f0c
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      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 */

 <preempt> |= UNLOCK_BLOCKED

 rcu_read_unlock()
   --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting

			irq_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 <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reported-and-tested-by: NEd Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      ec433f0c
    • P
      rcu: protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using irq handlers · 10f39bb1
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      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: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      10f39bb1
  7. 20 7月, 2011 3 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Streamline code produced by __rcu_read_unlock() · be0e1e21
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      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: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: NMathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
      be0e1e21
    • P
      rcu: Fix RCU_BOOST race handling current->rcu_read_unlock_special · 7765be2f
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      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: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Maybe-reported-by: NSergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Reported-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
      7765be2f
    • P
      rcu: decrease rcu_report_exp_rnp coupling with scheduler · 131906b0
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      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: NEd Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      131906b0
  9. 13 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  11. 17 6月, 2011 1 次提交
  13. 16 6月, 2011 1 次提交
  15. 15 6月, 2011 2 次提交
    • S
      rcu: Use softirq to address performance regression · 09223371
      由 Shaohua Li 提交于 
      Commit a26ac245(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: NShaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Tested-by: N"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      09223371
    • P
      rcu: Simplify curing of load woes · 9a432736
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      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: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: NDaniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>
      9a432736
  17. 31 5月, 2011 1 次提交
  19. 28 5月, 2011 2 次提交
  21. 27 5月, 2011 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof · 23b5c8fa
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      (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 d09b62df 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: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
      23b5c8fa
  23. 20 5月, 2011 1 次提交
  25. 08 5月, 2011 1 次提交
  27. 06 5月, 2011 6 次提交