On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 06:28:53PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
> >
> > It is expected that many sites will have CONFIG_TASKS_RCU=y, but
> > will never actually invoke call_rcu_tasks(). For such sites, creating
> > rcu_tasks_kthread() at boot is wasteful. This commit therefore defers
> > creation of this kthread until the time of the first call_rcu_tasks().
> >
> > This of course means that the first call_rcu_tasks() must be invoked
> > from process context after the scheduler is fully operational.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/update.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > index 1256a900cd01..d997163c7e92 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > @@ -378,7 +378,12 @@ DEFINE_SRCU(tasks_rcu_exit_srcu);
> > static int rcu_task_stall_timeout __read_mostly = HZ * 60 * 10;
> > module_param(rcu_task_stall_timeout, int, 0644);
> >
> > -/* Post an RCU-tasks callback. */
> > +static void rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread(void);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Post an RCU-tasks callback. First call must be from process context
> > + * after the scheduler if fully operational.
> > + */
> > void call_rcu_tasks(struct rcu_head *rhp, void (*func)(struct rcu_head
> > *rhp))
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > @@ -391,8 +396,10 @@ void call_rcu_tasks(struct rcu_head *rhp, void
> > (*func)(struct rcu_head *rhp))
> > *rcu_tasks_cbs_tail = rhp;
> > rcu_tasks_cbs_tail = &rhp->next;
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu_tasks_cbs_lock, flags);
> > - if (needwake)
> > + if (needwake) {
> > + rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread();
> > wake_up(&rcu_tasks_cbs_wq);
> > + }
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_tasks);
> >
> > @@ -618,15 +625,27 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_tasks_kthread(void *arg)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -/* Spawn rcu_tasks_kthread() at boot time. */
> > -static int __init rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread(void)
> > +/* Spawn rcu_tasks_kthread() at first call to call_rcu_tasks(). */
> > +static void rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread(void)
> > {
> > - struct task_struct __maybe_unused *t;
> > + static DEFINE_MUTEX(rcu_tasks_kthread_mutex);
> > + static struct task_struct *rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr;
> > + struct task_struct *t;
> >
> > + if (ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr)) {
> > + smp_mb(); /* Ensure caller sees full kthread. */
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> I don't see the need for this smp_mb(). The caller has already seen
> that rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr is assigned. What are we ensuring with this
> barrier again?
We are ensuring that any later operations on rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr
see a fully initialized thread. Because these later operations
might be loads, we cannot rely on control dependencies.
> an smp_rmb() before this ACCESS_ONCE() and an smp_wmb() after
> assigning to rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr should be enough, right?
Probably. But given that rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread() is only called
when a CPU is onlined, I am not much inclined to weaken it.
> > + mutex_lock(&rcu_tasks_kthread_mutex);
> > + if (rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&rcu_tasks_kthread_mutex);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > t = kthread_run(rcu_tasks_kthread, NULL, "rcu_tasks_kthread");
> > BUG_ON(IS_ERR(t));
> > - return 0;
> > + smp_mb(); /* Ensure others see full kthread. */
> > + ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr) = t;
>
> Isn't it better to reverse these two statements and change as follows?
>
> ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr) = t;
> smp_wmb();
This would break. We need all the task creation stuff to be seen as
having happened before the store to rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr. Putting
the barrier after the store to rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr would allow
both compiler and CPU to reorder task-creation stuff to follow the
store to the pointer, which would not be good.
> or
>
> smp_store_release(rcu_tasks_kthread_ptr, t);
>
> will ensure that this write to rcu_task_kthread_ptr is ordered with
> the previous read. I recently read memory-barriers.txt, so please
> excuse me if I am totally wrong. But I am confused! :(
Hmmm... An smp_store_release() combined with smp_load_acquire()
up earlier might be a good approach. Maybe as a future cleanup.
But please note that smp_store_release() puts the barrier -before-
the store. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > + mutex_unlock(&rcu_tasks_kthread_mutex);
> > }
> > -early_initcall(rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread);
> >
> > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU */
> > --
> > 1.8.1.5
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
