Skip to content

K
kernel_linux

OpenHarmony / kernel_linux
上一次同步 大约 4 年

通知 14
Star 8
Fork 2
K
kernel_linux
切换分支/标签
  1. 23 9月, 2012 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Fix day-one dyntick-idle stall-warning bug · a10d206e
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Each grace period is supposed to have at least one callback waiting
for that grace period to complete.  However, if CONFIG_NO_HZ=n, an
extra callback-free grace period is no big problem -- it will chew up
a tiny bit of CPU time, but it will complete normally.  In contrast,
CONFIG_NO_HZ=y kernels have the potential for all the CPUs to go to
sleep indefinitely, in turn indefinitely delaying completion of the
callback-free grace period.  Given that nothing is waiting on this grace
period, this is also not a problem.

That is, unless RCU CPU stall warnings are also enabled, as they are
in recent kernels.  In this case, if a CPU wakes up after at least one
minute of inactivity, an RCU CPU stall warning will result.  The reason
that no one noticed until quite recently is that most systems have enough
OS noise that they will never remain absolutely idle for a full minute.
But there are some embedded systems with cut-down userspace configurations
that consistently get into this situation.

All this begs the question of exactly how a callback-free grace period
gets started in the first place.  This can happen due to the fact that
CPUs do not necessarily agree on which grace period is in progress.
If a CPU still believes that the grace period that just completed is
still ongoing, it will believe that it has callbacks that need to wait for
another grace period, never mind the fact that the grace period that they
were waiting for just completed.  This CPU can therefore erroneously
decide to start a new grace period.  Note that this can happen in
TREE_RCU and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU even on a single-CPU system:  Deadlock
considerations mean that the CPU that detected the end of the grace
period is not necessarily officially informed of this fact for some time.

Once this CPU notices that the earlier grace period completed, it will
invoke its callbacks.  It then won't have any callbacks left.  If no
other CPU has any callbacks, we now have a callback-free grace period.

This commit therefore makes CPUs check more carefully before starting a
new grace period.  This new check relies on an array of tail pointers
into each CPU's list of callbacks.  If the CPU is up to date on which
grace periods have completed, it checks to see if any callbacks follow
the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment, otherwise it checks to see if any callbacks
follow the RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment.  The reason that this works is that
the RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment will be promoted to the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment
as soon as the CPU is officially notified that the old grace period
has ended.

This change is to cpu_needs_another_gp(), which is called in a number
of places.  The only one that really matters is in rcu_start_gp(), where
the root rcu_node structure's ->lock is held, which prevents any
other CPU from starting or completing a grace period, so that the
comparison that determines whether the CPU is missing the completion
of a grace period is stable.
Reported-by: NBecky Bruce <bgillbruce@gmail.com>
Reported-by: NSubodh Nijsure <snijsure@grid-net.com>
Reported-by: NPaul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>  # OMAP3730, OMAP4430
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
      a10d206e
  3. 06 7月, 2012 2 次提交
  5. 03 7月, 2012 24 次提交
  7. 26 6月, 2012 1 次提交
  9. 07 6月, 2012 1 次提交
  11. 10 5月, 2012 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Make rcu_barrier() less disruptive · b1420f1c
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      The rcu_barrier() primitive interrupts each and every CPU, registering
a callback on every CPU.  Once all of these callbacks have been invoked,
rcu_barrier() knows that every callback that was registered before
the call to rcu_barrier() has also been invoked.

However, there is no point in registering a callback on a CPU that
currently has no callbacks, most especially if that CPU is in a
deep idle state.  This commit therefore makes rcu_barrier() avoid
interrupting CPUs that have no callbacks.  Doing this requires reworking
the handling of orphaned callbacks, otherwise callbacks could slip through
rcu_barrier()'s net by being orphaned from a CPU that rcu_barrier() had
not yet interrupted to a CPU that rcu_barrier() had already interrupted.
This reworking was needed anyway to take a first step towards weaning
RCU from the CPU_DYING notifier's use of stop_cpu().
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      b1420f1c
  13. 03 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  15. 25 4月, 2012 3 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Make RCU_FAST_NO_HZ account for pauses out of idle · c57afe80
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Both Steven Rostedt's new idle-capable trace macros and the RCU_NONIDLE()
macro can cause RCU to momentarily pause out of idle without the rest
of the system being involved.  This can cause rcu_prepare_for_idle()
to run through its state machine too quickly, which can in turn result
in needless scheduling-clock interrupts.

This commit therefore adds code to enable rcu_prepare_for_idle() to
distinguish between an initial entry to idle on the one hand (which needs
to advance the rcu_prepare_for_idle() state machine) and an idle reentry
due to idle-capable trace macros and RCU_NONIDLE() on the other hand
(which should avoid advancing the rcu_prepare_for_idle() state machine).
Additional state is maintained to allow the timer to be correctly reposted
when returning after a momentary pause out of idle, and even more state
is maintained to detect when new non-lazy callbacks have been enqueued
(which may require re-evaluation of the approach to idleness).
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      c57afe80
    • P
      rcu: Document why rcu_blocking_is_gp() is safe · 6d813391
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      The rcu_blocking_is_gp() function tests to see if there is only one
online CPU, and if so, synchronize_sched() and friends become no-ops.
However, for larger systems, num_online_cpus() scans a large vector,
and might be preempted while doing so.  While preempted, any number
of CPUs might come online and go offline, potentially resulting in
num_online_cpus() returning 1 when there never had only been one
CPU online.  This could result in a too-short RCU grace period, which
could in turn result in total failure, except that the only way that
the grace period is too short is if there is an RCU read-side critical
section spanning it.  For RCU-sched and RCU-bh (which are the only
cases using rcu_blocking_is_gp()), RCU read-side critical sections
have either preemption or bh disabled, which prevents CPUs from going
offline.  This in turn prevents actual failures from occurring.

This commit therefore adds a large block comment to rcu_blocking_is_gp()
documenting why it is safe.  This commit also moves rcu_blocking_is_gp()
into kernel/rcutree.c, which should help prevent unwary developers from
mistaking it for a generally useful function.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      6d813391
    • P
      rcu: Reduce cache-miss initialization latencies for large systems · 8932a63d
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Commit #0209f649 (rcu: limit rcu_node leaf-level fanout) set an upper
limit of 16 on the leaf-level fanout for the rcu_node tree.  This was
needed to reduce lock contention that was induced by the synchronization
of scheduling-clock interrupts, which was in turn needed to improve
energy efficiency for moderate-sized lightly loaded servers.

However, reducing the leaf-level fanout means that there are more
leaf-level rcu_node structures in the tree, which in turn means that
RCU's grace-period initialization incurs more cache misses.  This is
not a problem on moderate-sized servers with only a few tens of CPUs,
but becomes a major source of real-time latency spikes on systems with
many hundreds of CPUs.  In addition, the workloads running on these large
systems tend to be CPU-bound, which eliminates the energy-efficiency
advantages of synchronizing scheduling-clock interrupts.  Therefore,
these systems need maximal values for the rcu_node leaf-level fanout.

This commit addresses this problem by introducing a new kernel parameter
named RCU_FANOUT_LEAF that directly controls the leaf-level fanout.
This parameter defaults to 16 to handle the common case of a moderate
sized lightly loaded servers, but may be set higher on larger systems.
Reported-by: NMike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Reported-by: NDimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      8932a63d
  17. 17 4月, 2012 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Permit call_rcu() from CPU_DYING notifiers · 92c38702
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      As of:

  29494be7 ("rcu,cleanup: simplify the code when cpu is dying")

RCU adopts callbacks from the dying CPU in its CPU_DYING notifier,
which means that any callbacks posted by later CPU_DYING notifiers
are ignored until the CPU comes back online.

A WARN_ON_ONCE() was added to __call_rcu() by:

  e5601400 ("rcu: Simplify offline processing")

to check for this condition.  Although this condition did not trigger
(at least as far as I know) during -next testing, it did recently
trigger in mainline:

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/2/34

What is needed longer term is for RCU's CPU_DEAD notifier to adopt any
callbacks that were posted by CPU_DYING notifiers, however, the Linux
kernel has been running with this sort of thing happening for quite
some time.  So the only thing that qualifies as a regression is the
WARN_ON_ONCE(), which this commit removes.

Making RCU's CPU_DEAD notifier adopt callbacks posted by CPU_DYING
notifiers is a topic for the 3.5 release of the Linux kernel.
Reported-by: NSergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      92c38702
  19. 22 2月, 2012 5 次提交
    • H
      rcu: Stop spurious warnings from synchronize_sched_expedited · 1cc85961
      由 Hugh Dickins 提交于 
      synchronize_sched_expedited() is spamming CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y
users with an unintended warning from the cpu_is_offline() check: use
raw_smp_processor_id() instead of smp_processor_id() there.

Because the warning is under a get_online_cpus(), it is not possible
for any CPUs to go offline, though it is quite possible that the
task might migrate between the raw_smp_processor_id() and the check
of cpu_is_offline().  This is not a problem because the task cannot
migrate from an offline CPU to an online one or vice versa.  The point
of the check is to verify that synchronize_sched_expedited() is not
called from an offline CPU, for example, from a CPU_DYING notifier, or,
more important, from an outgoing CPU making its way from its CPU_DYING
notifiers to the idle loop.
Signed-off-by: NHugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      1cc85961
    • P
      rcu: Add RCU_NONIDLE() for idle-loop RCU read-side critical sections · 8a2ecf47
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      RCU, RCU-bh, and RCU-sched read-side critical sections are forbidden
in the inner idle loop, that is, between the rcu_idle_enter() and the
rcu_idle_exit() -- RCU will happily ignore any such read-side critical
sections.  However, things like powertop need tracepoints in the inner
idle loop.

This commit therefore provides an RCU_NONIDLE() macro that can be used to
wrap code in the idle loop that requires RCU read-side critical sections.
Suggested-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: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Acked-by: NDeepthi Dharwar <deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      8a2ecf47
    • P
      rcu: Allow nesting of rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit() · 29e37d81
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Use of RCU in the idle loop is incorrect, quite a few instances of
just that have made their way into mainline, primarily event tracing.
The problem with RCU read-side critical sections on CPUs that RCU believes
to be idle is that RCU is completely ignoring the CPU, along with any
attempts and RCU read-side critical sections.

The approaches of eliminating the offending uses and of pushing the
definition of idle down beyond the offending uses have both proved
impractical.  The new approach is to encapsulate offending uses of RCU
with rcu_idle_exit() and rcu_idle_enter(), but this requires nesting
for code that is invoked both during idle and and during normal execution.
Therefore, this commit modifies rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit() to
permit nesting.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Acked-by: NDeepthi Dharwar <deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      29e37d81
    • P
      rcu: Call out dangers of expedited RCU primitives · 236fefaf
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      The expedited RCU primitives can be quite useful, but they have some
high costs as well.  This commit updates and creates docbook comments
calling out the costs, and updates the RCU documentation as well.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      236fefaf
    • P
      rcu: Rework detection of use of RCU by offline CPUs · 2036d94a
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Because newly offlined CPUs continue executing after completing the
CPU_DYING notifiers, they legitimately enter the scheduler and use
RCU while appearing to be offline.  This calls for a more sophisticated
approach as follows:

1.	RCU marks the CPU online during the CPU_UP_PREPARE phase.

2.	RCU marks the CPU offline during the CPU_DEAD phase.

3.	Diagnostics regarding use of read-side RCU by offline CPUs use
	RCU's accounting rather than the cpu_online_map.  (Note that
	__call_rcu() still uses cpu_online_map to detect illegal
	invocations within CPU_DYING notifiers.)

4.	Offline CPUs are prevented from hanging the system by
	force_quiescent_state(), which pays attention to cpu_online_map.
	Some additional work (in a later commit) will be needed to
	guarantee that force_quiescent_state() waits a full jiffy before
	assuming that a CPU is offline, for example, when called from
	idle entry.  (This commit also makes the one-jiffy wait
	explicit, since the old-style implicit wait can now be defeated
	by RCU_FAST_NO_HZ and by rcutorture.)

This approach avoids the false positives encountered when attempting to
use more exact classification of CPU online/offline state.
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      2036d94a