On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:40:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 05:08:30PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -398,11 +399,9 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
> > >           if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
> > >                   rnp->boost_tasks = np;
> > > -         /* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
> > > -         if (t->rcu_boost_mutex) {
> > > -                 rbmp = t->rcu_boost_mutex;
> > > -                 t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
> > > -         }
> > > +         /* Snapshot/clear ->boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
> > > +         if (rt_mutex_owner(&rnp->boost_mtx) == t)
> > > +                 rbmp = &rnp->boost_mtx;
> > 
> > The comment above looks confusing after this change ;) We do not clear it,
> > and it doesn't explain "with rcu_node lock held".
> > 
> > And, with or without this change it is not obvious why do we need "rbmp",
> > after this patch this becomes even more unobvious.
> > 
> > This is subjective of course, but perhaps it would be more understandable
> > to do
> > 
> >     bool xxx;
> > 
> >     ...
> > 
> >     // Check this under rcu_node lock to ensure that unlock below
> >     // can't race with rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked() in progress.
> >     xxx = rt_mutex_owner(&rnp->boost_mtx) == t;
> > 
> >     ...
> > 
> >     // rnp->lock was dropped
> >     if (xxx)
> >             rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
> > 
> > 
> > But this is very minor, I won't insist of course. Mostly I am just trying
> > to check my understanding.
> 
> No, this is good, and I will update accordingly.

I suppose I could have included the patch...

                                                        Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

rcu: Simplify priority boosting by putting rt_mutex in rcu_node

RCU priority boosting currently checks for boosting via a pointer in
task_struct.  However, this is not needed: As Oleg noted, if the
rt_mutex is placed in the rcu_node instead of on the booster's stack,
the boostee can simply check it see if it owns the lock.  This commit
makes this change, shrinking task_struct by one pointer and the kernel
by thirteen lines.

Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/include/linux/init_task.h b/include/linux/init_task.h
index 6df7f9fe0d01..2bb4c4f3531a 100644
--- a/include/linux/init_task.h
+++ b/include/linux/init_task.h
@@ -102,12 +102,6 @@ extern struct group_info init_groups;
 #define INIT_IDS
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-#define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()                                          \
-       .rcu_boost_mutex = NULL,
-#else
-#define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()
-#endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
 #define INIT_TASK_RCU_TREE_PREEMPT()                                   \
        .rcu_blocked_node = NULL,
@@ -119,8 +113,7 @@ extern struct group_info init_groups;
        .rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0,                                     \
        .rcu_read_unlock_special = 0,                                   \
        .rcu_node_entry = LIST_HEAD_INIT(tsk.rcu_node_entry),           \
-       INIT_TASK_RCU_TREE_PREEMPT()                                    \
-       INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()
+       INIT_TASK_RCU_TREE_PREEMPT()
 #else
 #define INIT_TASK_RCU_PREEMPT(tsk)
 #endif
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 306f4f0c987a..3cfbc05e66e6 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1270,9 +1270,6 @@ struct task_struct {
 #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
        struct rcu_node *rcu_blocked_node;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
-#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-       struct rt_mutex *rcu_boost_mutex;
-#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
 
 #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
        struct sched_info sched_info;
@@ -2009,9 +2006,6 @@ static inline void rcu_copy_process(struct task_struct *p)
 #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
        p->rcu_blocked_node = NULL;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
-#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-       p->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
-#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->rcu_node_entry);
 }
 
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index 31194ee9dfa6..db3f096ed80b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -177,6 +177,9 @@ struct rcu_node {
                                /*  to carry out the boosting is fully */
                                /*  released with no future boostee accesses */
                                /*  before that rt_mutex is re-initialized. */
+       struct rt_mutex boost_mtx;
+                               /* Used only for the priority-boosting */
+                               /*  side effect, not as a lock. */
        unsigned long boost_time;
                                /* When to start boosting (jiffies). */
        struct task_struct *boost_kthread_task;
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index dc98cacfef21..d8ae20f5ca87 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
 #include <linux/oom.h>
 #include <linux/smpboot.h>
 #include "../time/tick-internal.h"
+#include "../locking/rtmutex_common.h"
 
 #define RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO 1
 
@@ -336,7 +337,7 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
        unsigned long flags;
        struct list_head *np;
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-       struct rt_mutex *rbmp = NULL;
+       bool drop_boost_mutex = false;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
        struct rcu_node *rnp;
        int special;
@@ -398,11 +399,8 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
                if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
                        rnp->boost_tasks = np;
-               /* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
-               if (t->rcu_boost_mutex) {
-                       rbmp = t->rcu_boost_mutex;
-                       t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
-               }
+               /* Snapshot ->boost_mtx ownership with rcu_node lock held. */
+               drop_boost_mutex = rt_mutex_owner(&rnp->boost_mtx) == t;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
 
                /*
@@ -427,8 +425,8 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
                /* Unboost if we were boosted. */
-               if (rbmp) {
-                       rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);
+               if (drop_boost_mutex) {
+                       rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
                        complete(&rnp->boost_completion);
                }
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
@@ -1151,7 +1149,6 @@ static void rcu_wake_cond(struct task_struct *t, int 
status)
 static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
 {
        unsigned long flags;
-       struct rt_mutex mtx;
        struct task_struct *t;
        struct list_head *tb;
 
@@ -1202,14 +1199,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
         * section.
         */
        t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
-       rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
-       t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
+       rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&rnp->boost_mtx, t);
        init_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
        raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
-       rt_mutex_lock(&mtx);  /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
-       rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx);  /* Keep lockdep happy. */
+       /* Lock only for side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
+       rt_mutex_lock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
+       rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);  /* Then keep lockdep happy. */
 
-       /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
+       /* Wait for boostee to be done w/boost_mtx before reinitializing. */
        wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
 
        return ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL ||

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to