On 08/01/2014 05:55 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> This commit adds a new RCU-tasks flavor of RCU, which provides
> call_rcu_tasks(). This RCU flavor's quiescent states are voluntary
> context switch (not preemption!), userspace execution, and the idle loop.
> Note that unlike other RCU flavors, these quiescent states occur in tasks,
> not necessarily CPUs. Includes fixes from Steven Rostedt.
>
> This RCU flavor is assumed to have very infrequent latency-tolerate
> updaters. This assumption permits significant simplifications, including
> a single global callback list protected by a single global lock, along
> with a single linked list containing all tasks that have not yet passed
> through a quiescent state. If experience shows this assumption to be
> incorrect, the required additional complexity will be added.
>
> Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/init_task.h | 9 +++
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 36 ++++++++++
> include/linux/sched.h | 23 ++++---
> init/Kconfig | 10 +++
> kernel/rcu/tiny.c | 2 +
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +
> kernel/rcu/update.c | 171
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 7 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/init_task.h b/include/linux/init_task.h
> index 6df7f9fe0d01..78715ea7c30c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/init_task.h
> +++ b/include/linux/init_task.h
> @@ -124,6 +124,14 @@ extern struct group_info init_groups;
> #else
> #define INIT_TASK_RCU_PREEMPT(tsk)
> #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> +#define INIT_TASK_RCU_TASKS(tsk) \
> + .rcu_tasks_holdout = false, \
> + .rcu_tasks_holdout_list = \
> + LIST_HEAD_INIT(tsk.rcu_tasks_holdout_list),
> +#else
> +#define INIT_TASK_RCU_TASKS(tsk)
> +#endif
>
> extern struct cred init_cred;
>
> @@ -231,6 +239,7 @@ extern struct task_group root_task_group;
> INIT_FTRACE_GRAPH \
> INIT_TRACE_RECURSION \
> INIT_TASK_RCU_PREEMPT(tsk) \
> + INIT_TASK_RCU_TASKS(tsk) \
> INIT_CPUSET_SEQ(tsk) \
> INIT_RT_MUTEXES(tsk) \
> INIT_VTIME(tsk) \
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 6a94cc8b1ca0..829efc99df3e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -197,6 +197,26 @@ void call_rcu_sched(struct rcu_head *head,
>
> void synchronize_sched(void);
>
> +/**
> + * call_rcu_tasks() - Queue an RCU for invocation task-based grace period
> + * @head: structure to be used for queueing the RCU updates.
> + * @func: actual callback function to be invoked after the grace period
> + *
> + * The callback function will be invoked some time after a full grace
> + * period elapses, in other words after all currently executing RCU
> + * read-side critical sections have completed. call_rcu_tasks() assumes
> + * that the read-side critical sections end at a voluntary context
> + * switch (not a preemption!), entry into idle, or transition to usermode
> + * execution. As such, there are no read-side primitives analogous to
> + * rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() because this primitive is intended
> + * to determine that all tasks have passed through a safe state, not so
> + * much for data-strcuture synchronization.
> + *
> + * See the description of call_rcu() for more detailed information on
> + * memory ordering guarantees.
> + */
> +void call_rcu_tasks(struct rcu_head *head, void (*func)(struct rcu_head
> *head));
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
>
> void __rcu_read_lock(void);
> @@ -294,6 +314,22 @@ static inline void rcu_user_hooks_switch(struct
> task_struct *prev,
> rcu_irq_exit(); \
> } while (0)
>
> +/*
> + * Note a voluntary context switch for RCU-tasks benefit. This is a
> + * macro rather than an inline function to avoid #include hell.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> +#define rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch(t) \
> + do { \
> + preempt_disable(); /* Exclude synchronize_sched(); */ \
> + if (ACCESS_ONCE((t)->rcu_tasks_holdout)) \
> + ACCESS_ONCE((t)->rcu_tasks_holdout) = 0; \
> + preempt_enable(); \
Why the preempt_disable() is needed here? The comments in rcu_tasks_kthread()
can't persuade me. Maybe it could be removed?
--
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/
