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. 23 7月, 2015 1 次提交
  3. 07 7月, 2015 1 次提交
  5. 28 5月, 2015 21 次提交
  7. 14 5月, 2015 1 次提交
  9. 15 4月, 2015 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Control grace-period delays directly from value · 8d7dc928
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      In a misguided attempt to avoid an #ifdef, the use of the
gp_init_delay module parameter was conditioned on the corresponding
RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT Kconfig variable, using IS_ENABLED() at
the point of use in the code.  This meant that the compiler always saw
the delay, which meant that RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT_DELAY had to be
unconditionally defined.  This in turn caused "make oldconfig" to ask
pointless questions about the value of RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT_DELAY
in cases where it was not even used.

This commit avoids these pointless questions by defining gp_init_delay
under #ifdef.  In one branch, gp_init_delay is initialized to
RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT_DELAY and is also a module parameter (thus
allowing boot-time modification), and in the other branch gp_init_delay
is a const variable initialized by default to zero.

This approach also simplifies the code at the delay point by eliminating
the IS_DEFINED().  Because gp_init_delay is constant zero in the no-delay
case intended for production use, the "gp_init_delay > 0" check causes
the delay to become dead code, as desired in this case.  In addition,
this commit replaces magic constant "10" with the preprocessor variable
PER_RCU_NODE_PERIOD, which controls the number of grace periods that
are allowed to elapse at full speed before a delay is inserted.

Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by:
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      8d7dc928
  11. 20 3月, 2015 2 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Associate quiescent-state reports with grace period · 654e9533
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      As noted in earlier commit logs, CPU hotplug operations running
concurrently with grace-period initialization can result in a given
leaf rcu_node structure having all CPUs offline and no blocked readers,
but with this rcu_node structure nevertheless blocking the current
grace period.  Therefore, the quiescent-state forcing code now checks
for this situation and repairs it.

Unfortunately, this checking can result in false positives, for example,
when the last task has just removed itself from this leaf rcu_node
structure, but has not yet started clearing the ->qsmask bits further
up the structure.  This means that the grace-period kthread (which
forces quiescent states) and some other task might be attempting to
concurrently clear these ->qsmask bits.  This is usually not a problem:
One of these tasks will be the first to acquire the upper-level rcu_node
structure's lock and with therefore clear the bit, and the other task,
seeing the bit already cleared, will stop trying to clear bits.

Sadly, this means that the following unusual sequence of events -can-
result in a problem:

1.	The grace-period kthread wins, and clears the ->qsmask bits.

2.	This is the last thing blocking the current grace period, so
	that the grace-period kthread clears ->qsmask bits all the way
	to the root and finds that the root ->qsmask field is now zero.

3.	Another grace period is required, so that the grace period kthread
	initializes it, including setting all the needed qsmask bits.

4.	The leaf rcu_node structure (the one that started this whole
	mess) is blocking this new grace period, either because it
	has at least one online CPU or because there is at least one
	task that had blocked within an RCU read-side critical section
	while running on one of this leaf rcu_node structure's CPUs.
	(And yes, that CPU might well have gone offline before the
	grace period in step (3) above started, which can mean that
	there is a task on the leaf rcu_node structure's ->blkd_tasks
	list, but ->qsmask equal to zero.)

5.	The other kthread didn't get around to trying to clear the upper
	level ->qsmask bits until all the above had happened.  This means
	that it now sees bits set in the upper-level ->qsmask field, so it
	proceeds to clear them.  Too bad that it is doing so on behalf of
	a quiescent state that does not apply to the current grace period!

This sequence of events can result in the new grace period being too
short.  It can also result in the new grace period ending before the
leaf rcu_node structure's ->qsmask bits have been cleared, which will
result in splats during initialization of the next grace period.  In
addition, it can result in tasks blocking the new grace period still
being queued at the start of the next grace period, which will result
in other splats.  Sasha's testing turned up another of these splats,
as did rcutorture testing.  (And yes, rcutorture is being adjusted to
make these splats show up more quickly.  Which probably is having the
undesirable side effect of making other problems show up less quickly.
Can't have everything!)
Reported-by: NSasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.0.x
Tested-by: NSasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
      654e9533
    • P
      rcu: Yet another fix for preemption and CPU hotplug · a77da14c
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      As noted earlier, the following sequence of events can occur when
running PREEMPT_RCU and HOTPLUG_CPU on a system with a multi-level
rcu_node combining tree:

1.	A group of tasks block on CPUs corresponding to a given leaf
	rcu_node structure while within RCU read-side critical sections.
2.	All CPUs corrsponding to that rcu_node structure go offline.
3.	The next grace period starts, but because there are still tasks
	blocked, the upper-level bits corresponding to this leaf rcu_node
	structure remain set.
4.	All the tasks exit their RCU read-side critical sections and
	remove themselves from the leaf rcu_node structure's list,
	leaving it empty.
5.	But because there now is code to check for this condition at
	force-quiescent-state time, the upper bits are cleared and the
	grace period completes.

However, there is another complication that can occur following step 4 above:

4a.	The grace period starts, and the leaf rcu_node structure's
	gp_tasks pointer is set to NULL because there are no tasks
	blocked on this structure.
4b.	One of the CPUs corresponding to the leaf rcu_node structure
	comes back online.
4b.	An endless stream of tasks are preempted within RCU read-side
	critical sections on this CPU, such that the ->blkd_tasks
	list is always non-empty.

The grace period will never end.

This commit therefore makes the force-quiescent-state processing check only
for absence of tasks blocking the current grace period rather than absence
of tasks altogether.  This will cause a quiescent state to be reported if
the current leaf rcu_node structure is not blocking the current grace period
and its parent thinks that it is, regardless of how RCU managed to get
itself into this state.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.0.x
Tested-by: NSasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
      a77da14c
  13. 13 3月, 2015 5 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Add diagnostics to grace-period cleanup · 5c60d25f
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      At grace-period initialization time, RCU checks that all quiescent
states were really reported for the previous grace period.  Now that
grace-period cleanup has been split out of grace-period initialization,
this commit also performs those checks at grace-period cleanup time.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      5c60d25f
    • P
      rcu: Handle outgoing CPUs on exit from idle loop · 88428cc5
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      This commit informs RCU of an outgoing CPU just before that CPU invokes
arch_cpu_idle_dead() during its last pass through the idle loop (via a
new CPU_DYING_IDLE notifier value).  This change means that RCU need not
deal with outgoing CPUs passing through the scheduler after informing
RCU that they are no longer online.  Note that removing the CPU from
the rcu_node ->qsmaskinit bit masks is done at CPU_DYING_IDLE time,
and orphaning callbacks is still done at CPU_DEAD time, the reason being
that at CPU_DEAD time we have another CPU that can adopt them.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      88428cc5
    • P
      rcu: Eliminate ->onoff_mutex from rcu_node structure · c1990689
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Because that RCU grace-period initialization need no longer exclude
CPU-hotplug operations, this commit eliminates the ->onoff_mutex and
its uses.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      c1990689
    • P
      rcu: Process offlining and onlining only at grace-period start · 0aa04b05
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Races between CPU hotplug and grace periods can be difficult to resolve,
so the ->onoff_mutex is used to exclude the two events.  Unfortunately,
this means that it is impossible for an outgoing CPU to perform the
last bits of its offlining from its last pass through the idle loop,
because sleeplocks cannot be acquired in that context.

This commit avoids these problems by buffering online and offline events
in a new ->qsmaskinitnext field in the leaf rcu_node structures.  When a
grace period starts, the events accumulated in this mask are applied to
the ->qsmaskinit field, and, if needed, up the rcu_node tree.  The special
case of all CPUs corresponding to a given leaf rcu_node structure being
offline while there are still elements in that structure's ->blkd_tasks
list is handled using a new ->wait_blkd_tasks field.  In this case,
propagating the offline bits up the tree is deferred until the beginning
of the grace period after all of the tasks have exited their RCU read-side
critical sections and removed themselves from the list, at which point
the ->wait_blkd_tasks flag is cleared.  If one of that leaf rcu_node
structure's CPUs comes back online before the list empties, then the
->wait_blkd_tasks flag is simply cleared.

This of course means that RCU's notion of which CPUs are offline can be
out of date.  This is OK because RCU need only wait on CPUs that were
online at the time that the grace period started.  In addition, RCU's
force-quiescent-state actions will handle the case where a CPU goes
offline after the grace period starts.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      0aa04b05
    • P
      rcu: Move rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() to common code · cc99a310
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      The rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() function is invoked when the
last task blocking the current grace period exits its outermost
RCU read-side critical section.  Previously, this was called only
from rcu_read_unlock_special(), and was therefore defined only when
CONFIG_RCU_PREEMPT=y.  However, this function will be invoked even when
CONFIG_RCU_PREEMPT=n once CPU-hotplug operations are processed only at
the beginnings of RCU grace periods.  The reason for this change is that
the last task on a given leaf rcu_node structure's ->blkd_tasks list
might well exit its RCU read-side critical section between the time that
recent CPU-hotplug operations were applied and when the new grace period
was initialized.  This situation could result in RCU waiting forever on
that leaf rcu_node structure, because if all that structure's CPUs were
already offline, there would be no quiescent-state events to drive that
structure's part of the grace period.

This commit therefore moves rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() to common code
that is built unconditionally so that the quiescent-state-forcing code
can clean up after this situation, avoiding the grace-period stall.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      cc99a310
  15. 12 3月, 2015 5 次提交
  17. 04 3月, 2015 3 次提交