Skip to content

R
raspberrypi-kernel

openeuler / raspberrypi-kernel

通知 13
Star 1
Fork 0
R
raspberrypi-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 04 11月, 2014 9 次提交
  3. 29 10月, 2014 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Make rcu_barrier() understand about missing rcuo kthreads · d7e29933
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Commit 35ce7f29 (rcu: Create rcuo kthreads only for onlined CPUs)
avoids creating rcuo kthreads for CPUs that never come online.  This
fixes a bug in many instances of firmware: Instead of lying about their
age, these systems instead lie about the number of CPUs that they have.
Before commit 35ce7f29, this could result in huge numbers of useless
rcuo kthreads being created.

It appears that experience indicates that I should have told the
people suffering from this problem to fix their broken firmware, but
I instead produced what turned out to be a partial fix.   The missing
piece supplied by this commit makes sure that rcu_barrier() knows not to
post callbacks for no-CBs CPUs that have not yet come online, because
otherwise rcu_barrier() will hang on systems having firmware that lies
about the number of CPUs.

It is tempting to simply have rcu_barrier() refuse to post a callback on
any no-CBs CPU that does not have an rcuo kthread.  This unfortunately
does not work because rcu_barrier() is required to wait for all pending
callbacks.  It is therefore required to wait even for those callbacks
that cannot possibly be invoked.  Even if doing so hangs the system.

Given that posting a callback to a no-CBs CPU that does not yet have an
rcuo kthread can hang rcu_barrier(), It is tempting to report an error
in this case.  Unfortunately, this will result in false positives at
boot time, when it is perfectly legal to post callbacks to the boot CPU
before the scheduler has started, in other words, before it is legal
to invoke rcu_barrier().

So this commit instead has rcu_barrier() avoid posting callbacks to
CPUs having neither rcuo kthread nor pending callbacks, and has it
complain bitterly if it finds CPUs having no rcuo kthread but some
pending callbacks.  And when rcu_barrier() does find CPUs having no rcuo
kthread but pending callbacks, as noted earlier, it has no choice but
to hang indefinitely.
Reported-by: NYanko Kaneti <yaneti@declera.com>
Reported-by: NJay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
Reported-by: NMeelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>
Reported-by: NEric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: NEric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com>
Tested-by: NJay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
Tested-by: NYanko Kaneti <yaneti@declera.com>
Tested-by: NKevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com>
Tested-by: NMeelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>
      d7e29933
  5. 19 9月, 2014 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug and expedited grace periods · dd56af42
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Currently, the expedited grace-period primitives do get_online_cpus().
This greatly simplifies their implementation, but means that calls
to them holding locks that are acquired by CPU-hotplug notifiers (to
say nothing of calls to these primitives from CPU-hotplug notifiers)
can deadlock.  But this is starting to become inconvenient, as can be
seen here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/5/754.  The problem in this
case is that some developers need to acquire a mutex from a CPU-hotplug
notifier, but also need to hold it across a synchronize_rcu_expedited().
As noted above, this currently results in deadlock.

This commit avoids the deadlock and retains the simplicity by creating
a try_get_online_cpus(), which returns false if the get_online_cpus()
reference count could not immediately be incremented.  If a call to
try_get_online_cpus() returns true, the expedited primitives operate as
before.  If a call returns false, the expedited primitives fall back to
normal grace-period operations.  This falling back of course results in
increased grace-period latency, but only during times when CPU hotplug
operations are actually in flight.  The effect should therefore be
negligible during normal operation.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Tested-by: NLan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
      dd56af42
  7. 17 9月, 2014 2 次提交
  9. 08 9月, 2014 11 次提交
  11. 10 7月, 2014 7 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Remove CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY · 11992c70
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      The CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY Kconfig parameter doesn't appear to be very
effective at finding race conditions, so this commit removes it.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
[ paulmck: Remove definition and uses as noted by Paul Bolle. ]
      11992c70
    • S
      rcu: Use __this_cpu_read() instead of per_cpu_ptr() · d860d403
      由 Shan Wei 提交于 
      The __this_cpu_read() function produces better code than does
per_cpu_ptr() on both ARM and x86.  For example, gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro
4.7.3-12ubuntu1) 4.7.3 produces the following:

ARMv7 per_cpu_ptr():

force_quiescent_state:
    mov    r3, sp    @,
    bic    r1, r3, #8128    @ tmp171,,
    ldr    r2, .L98    @ tmp169,
    bic    r1, r1, #63    @ tmp170, tmp171,
    ldr    r3, [r0, #220]    @ __ptr, rsp_6(D)->rda
    ldr    r1, [r1, #20]    @ D.35903_68->cpu, D.35903_68->cpu
    mov    r6, r0    @ rsp, rsp
    ldr    r2, [r2, r1, asl #2]    @ tmp173, __per_cpu_offset
    add    r3, r3, r2    @ tmp175, __ptr, tmp173
    ldr    r5, [r3, #12]    @ rnp_old, D.29162_13->mynode

ARMv7 __this_cpu_read():

force_quiescent_state:
    ldr    r3, [r0, #220]    @ rsp_7(D)->rda, rsp_7(D)->rda
    mov    r6, r0    @ rsp, rsp
    add    r3, r3, #12    @ __ptr, rsp_7(D)->rda,
    ldr    r5, [r2, r3]    @ rnp_old, *D.29176_13

Using gcc 4.8.2:

x86_64 per_cpu_ptr():

    movl %gs:cpu_number,%edx    # cpu_number, pscr_ret__
    movslq    %edx, %rdx    # pscr_ret__, pscr_ret__
    movq    __per_cpu_offset(,%rdx,8), %rdx    # __per_cpu_offset, tmp93
    movq    %rdi, %r13    # rsp, rsp
    movq    1000(%rdi), %rax    # rsp_9(D)->rda, __ptr
    movq    24(%rdx,%rax), %r12    # _15->mynode, rnp_old

x86_64 __this_cpu_read():

    movq    %rdi, %r13    # rsp, rsp
    movq    1000(%rdi), %rax    # rsp_9(D)->rda, rsp_9(D)->rda
    movq %gs:24(%rax),%r12    # _10->mynode, rnp_old

Because this change produces significant benefits for these two very
diverse architectures, this commit makes this change.
Signed-off-by: NShan Wei <davidshan@tencent.com>
Acked-by: NChristoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: NPranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Reviewed-by: NLai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
      d860d403
    • P
      rcu: Don't use NMIs to dump other CPUs' stacks · bc1dce51
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Although NMI-based stack dumps are in principle more accurate, they are
also more likely to trigger deadlocks.  This commit therefore replaces
all uses of trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() with rcu_dump_cpu_stacks(), so
that the CPU detecting an RCU CPU stall does the stack dumping.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NLai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
      bc1dce51
    • P
      rcu: Check both root and current rcu_node when setting up future grace period · 48bd8e9b
      由 Pranith Kumar 提交于 
      The rcu_start_future_gp() function checks the current rcu_node's ->gpnum
and ->completed twice, once without ACCESS_ONCE() and once with it.
Which is pointless because we hold that rcu_node's ->lock at that point.
The intent was to check the current rcu_node structure and the root
rcu_node structure, the latter locklessly with ACCESS_ONCE().  This
commit therefore makes that change.

The reason that it is safe to locklessly check the root rcu_nodes's
->gpnum and ->completed fields is that we hold the current rcu_node's
->lock, which constrains the root rcu_node's ability to change its
->gpnum and ->completed fields.  Of course, if there is a single rcu_node
structure, then rnp_root==rnp, and holding the lock prevents all changes.
If there is more than one rcu_node structure, then the code updates the
fields in the following order:

1.	Increment rnp_root->gpnum to start new grace period.
2.	Increment rnp->gpnum to initialize the current rcu_node,
	continuing initialization for the new grace period.
3.	Increment rnp_root->completed to end the current grace period.
4.	Increment rnp->completed to continue cleaning up after the
	old grace period.

So there are four possible combinations of relative values of these
four fields:

N   N   N   N:  RCU idle, new grace period must be initiated.
		Although rnp_root->gpnum might be incremented immediately
		after we check, that will just result in unnecessary work.
		The grace period already started, and we try to start it.

N+1 N   N   N:  RCU grace period just started.  No further change is
		possible because we hold rnp->lock, so the checks of
		rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed are stable.
		We know that our request for a future grace period will
		be seen during grace-period cleanup.

N+1 N   N+1 N:  RCU grace period is ongoing.  Because rnp->gpnum is
		different than rnp->completed, we won't even look at
		rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed, so the possible
		concurrent change to rnp_root->completed does not matter.
		We know that our request for a future grace period will
		be seen during grace-period cleanup, which cannot pass
		this rcu_node because we hold its ->lock.

N+1 N+1 N+1 N:  RCU grace period has ended, but not yet been cleaned up.
		Because rnp->gpnum is different than rnp->completed, we
		won't look at rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed, so
		the possible concurrent change to rnp_root->completed does
		not matter.  We know that our request for a future grace
		period will be seen during grace-period cleanup, which
		cannot pass this rcu_node because we hold its ->lock.

Therefore, despite initial appearances, the lockless check is safe.
Signed-off-by: NPranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
[ paulmck: Update comment to say why the lockless check is safe. ]
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      48bd8e9b
    • P
      rcu: Loosen __call_rcu()'s rcu_head alignment constraint · 1146edcb
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      The m68k architecture aligns only to 16-bit boundaries, which can cause
the align-to-32-bits check in __call_rcu() to trigger.  Because there is
currently no known potential need for more than one low-order bit, this
commit loosens the check to 16-bit boundaries.
Reported-by: NGreg Ungerer <gerg@uclinux.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NLai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
      1146edcb
    • P
      rcu: Eliminate read-modify-write ACCESS_ONCE() calls · a792563b
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      RCU contains code of the following forms:

	ACCESS_ONCE(x)++;
	ACCESS_ONCE(x) += y;
	ACCESS_ONCE(x) -= y;

Now these constructs do operate correctly, but they really result in a
pair of volatile accesses, one to do the load and another to do the store.
This can be confusing, as the casual reader might well assume that (for
example) gcc might generate a memory-to-memory add instruction for each
of these three cases.  In fact, gcc will do no such thing.  Also, there
is a good chance that the kernel will move to separate load and store
variants of ACCESS_ONCE(), and constructs like the above could easily
confuse both people and scripts attempting to make that sort of change.
Finally, most of RCU's read-modify-write uses of ACCESS_ONCE() really
only need the store to be volatile, so that the read-modify-write form
might be misleading.

This commit therefore changes the above forms in RCU so that each instance
of ACCESS_ONCE() either does a load or a store, but not both.  In a few
cases, ACCESS_ONCE() was not critical, for example, for maintaining
statisitics.  In these cases, ACCESS_ONCE() has been dispensed with
entirely.
Suggested-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      a792563b
    • F
      rcu: Make rcu node arrays static const char * const · b4426b49
      由 Fabian Frederick 提交于 
      Those two arrays are being passed to lockdep_init_map(), which expects
const char *, and are stored in lockdep_map the same way.

Cc: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NFabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      b4426b49
  13. 24 6月, 2014 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU · 4a81e832
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Commit ac1bea85 (Make cond_resched() report RCU quiescent states)
fixed a problem where a CPU looping in the kernel with but one runnable
task would give RCU CPU stall warnings, even if the in-kernel loop
contained cond_resched() calls.  Unfortunately, in so doing, it introduced
performance regressions in Anton Blanchard's will-it-scale "open1" test.
The problem appears to be not so much the increased cond_resched() path
length as an increase in the rate at which grace periods complete, which
increased per-update grace-period overhead.

This commit takes a different approach to fixing this bug, mainly by
moving the RCU-visible quiescent state from cond_resched() to
rcu_note_context_switch(), and by further reducing the check to a
simple non-zero test of a single per-CPU variable.  However, this
approach requires that the force-quiescent-state processing send
resched IPIs to the offending CPUs.  These will be sent only once
the grace period has reached an age specified by the boot/sysfs
parameter rcutree.jiffies_till_sched_qs, or once the grace period
reaches an age halfway to the point at which RCU CPU stall warnings
will be emitted, whichever comes first.
Reported-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
[ paulmck: Made rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() as suggested by the
  ktest build robot.  Also fixed smp_mb() comment as noted by
  Oleg Nesterov. ]

Merge with e552592e (Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU)
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      4a81e832
  15. 15 5月, 2014 2 次提交
  17. 14 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  19. 29 4月, 2014 5 次提交