On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:29:17PM +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > I think it can be deterministic (on the long timescale of memory
> > management)
> > anyway: Boost any non-RT task entering an RCU region to the lowest RT
> > priority.
> > This way only all the RT tasks + one non-RT task can be within those
> > regions. The RT-tasks are supposed to have some kind of upper bound to
> > their CPU-usage. The non-RT task will also finish "soon" as it is
> > boosted. If the RCU batches are also at the lowest RT-priority they can be
> > run immediately after the non-RT task is done.
>
> Hmmm... Sort of a preemptive-first-strike priority boost. Cute! ;-)
>
Well, I was actually thinking of an API like
preempt_by_nonrt_disable()
preempt_by_nonrt_enable()
working like the old preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() but still
allowing RT tasks (as well as priority inheriting non-RT tasks) to be
scheduled. That would kind of help "split" the kernel into two halfs: the
RT part and the non-RT part. The non-RT part would in many ways work as it
has always done.
> > > clearly the simplest solution is to go with the single-reader locks for
> > > now - a separate experiment could be done with a new type of rwlock that
> > > can only be used by the RCU code. (I'm not quite sure whether we could
> > > guarantee a minimum rate of RCU callback processing under such a scheme
> > > though. It's an eventual memory DoS otherwise.)
> > >
> >
> > Why are a lock needed at all? If it is doable without locking for an
> > non-preemptable SMP kernel it must be doable for an preemptable kernel as
> > well.I am convinced some kind of per-CPU rcu_read_count as I specified in
> > my previous mail can work some way or the other. call_rcu() might need to
> > do more complicated stuff and thus use CPU but call_rcu() is supposed to
> > be an relative rare event not worth optimizing for. Such an
> > implementation will work for any preemptable kernel, not only PREEMPT_RT.
> > For performance is considered it is important not to acquire any locks in
> > the rcu-read regions.
>
> You definitely don't need a lock -- you can just suppress preemption
> on the read side instead. But that potentially makes for long scheduling
> latencies.
Well, in my patch I do not leave preemption off - only while doing the
simple ++/--. In effect, I let rcu_qsctr_inc know that some RCU reader
might be active, i.e. preempted, on the current CPU such that this isn't
and quiescent point after all.
(To others: Paul nicely unfolded my attachment below - I left it in
the mail such you can read it.)
The problem with this approach is ofcourse that user space programs might
preempt an RCU reader for a very long time such that RCU batches are never
really run. The boosting of non-RT tasks mentioned above would help a
lot.
A plus(?) in it: You can actually sleep while having the rcu_read_lock !!
>
> The counter approach might work, and is also what the implementation #5
> does -- check out rcu_read_lock() in Ingo's most recent patch.
>
Do you refer to your original mail with implementing it in 5 steps?
In #5 in that one (-V0.7.41-00, right?) you use a lock and as you say that
forces syncronization between the CPUs - bad for scaling. It does make the
RCU batches somewhat deterministic, as the RCU task can boost the readers
to the rcu-task's priority.
The problem about this approach is that everybody calling into RCU code
have a worst case behaviour of the systemwide worst case RCU reader
section - which can be pretty large (in principle infinite if somebody.)
So if somebody uses a call to a function in the code containing a RCU read
area the worst case behavious would be the same as teh worst case latency
in the simple world where preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() was used.
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > I tried this approach. My UP labtop did boot on it, but I haven't testet
> > it further. I have included the very small patch as an attachment.
> >
> > > Ingo
> >
> > I have not yet looked at -V0.7.41-00...
> >
> > Esben
> >
>
> > diff -Naur --exclude-from diff_exclude
> > linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00-RCU/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > --- linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2005-03-11
> > 23:40:13.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00-RCU/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > 2005-03-19 12:47:09.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
> > * curlist - current batch for which quiescent cycle started if any
> > */
> > struct rcu_data {
> > + long active_readers;
> > /* 1) quiescent state handling : */
> > long quiescbatch; /* Batch # for grace period */
> > int passed_quiesc; /* User-mode/idle loop etc. */
> > @@ -115,12 +116,14 @@
> > static inline void rcu_qsctr_inc(int cpu)
> > {
> > struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu);
> > - rdp->passed_quiesc = 1;
> > + if(rdp->active_readers==0)
> > + rdp->passed_quiesc = 1;
> > }
> > static inline void rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(int cpu)
> > {
> > struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_bh_data, cpu);
> > - rdp->passed_quiesc = 1;
> > + if(rdp->active_readers==0)
> > + rdp->passed_quiesc = 1;
> > }
> >
> > static inline int __rcu_pending(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp,
> > @@ -183,29 +186,27 @@
> > *
> > * It is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical section.
> > */
> > -#define rcu_read_lock() preempt_disable()
> > +static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
> > +{
> > + preempt_disable();
> > + __get_cpu_var(rcu_data).active_readers++;
> > + preempt_enable();
> > +}
> >
> > /**
> > * rcu_read_unlock - marks the end of an RCU read-side critical section.
> > *
> > * See rcu_read_lock() for more information.
> > */
> > -#define rcu_read_unlock() preempt_enable()
> > +static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > +{
> > + preempt_disable();
> > + __get_cpu_var(rcu_data).active_readers--;
> > + preempt_enable();
> > +}
> >
> > #define IGNORE_LOCK(op, lock) do { (void)(lock); op(); } while (0)
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> > -# define rcu_read_lock_spin(lock) spin_lock(lock)
> > -# define rcu_read_unlock_spin(lock) spin_unlock(lock)
> > -# define rcu_read_lock_read(lock) read_lock(lock)
> > -# define rcu_read_unlock_read(lock) read_unlock(lock)
> > -# define rcu_read_lock_bh_read(lock) read_lock_bh(lock)
> > -# define rcu_read_unlock_bh_read(lock) read_unlock_bh(lock)
> > -# define rcu_read_lock_down_read(rwsem) down_read(rwsem)
> > -# define rcu_read_unlock_up_read(rwsem) up_read(rwsem)
> > -# define rcu_read_lock_nort() do { } while (0)
> > -# define rcu_read_unlock_nort() do { } while (0)
> > -#else
> > # define rcu_read_lock_spin(lock) IGNORE_LOCK(rcu_read_lock, lock)
> > # define rcu_read_unlock_spin(lock) IGNORE_LOCK(rcu_read_unlock,
> > lock)
> > # define rcu_read_lock_read(lock) IGNORE_LOCK(rcu_read_lock, lock)
> > @@ -216,15 +217,10 @@
> > # define rcu_read_unlock_nort() rcu_read_unlock()
> > # define rcu_read_lock_bh_read(lock) IGNORE_LOCK(rcu_read_lock_bh,
> > lock)
> > # define rcu_read_unlock_bh_read(lock) IGNORE_LOCK(rcu_read_unlock_bh,
> > lock)
> > -#endif
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> > -# define rcu_read_lock_sem(lock) down(lock)
> > -# define rcu_read_unlock_sem(lock) up(lock)
> > -#else
> > # define rcu_read_lock_sem(lock) IGNORE_LOCK(rcu_read_lock, lock)
> > # define rcu_read_unlock_sem(lock) IGNORE_LOCK(rcu_read_unlock, lock)
> > -#endif
> > +
> > /*
> > * So where is rcu_write_lock()? It does not exist, as there is no
> > * way for writers to lock out RCU readers. This is a feature, not
> > diff -Naur --exclude-from diff_exclude
> > linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00/Makefile
> > linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00-RCU/Makefile
> > --- linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00/Makefile 2005-03-11 23:40:13.000000000
> > +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.11-final-V0.7.40-00-RCU/Makefile 2005-03-19
> > 12:41:09.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> > VERSION = 2
> > PATCHLEVEL = 6
> > SUBLEVEL = 11
> > -EXTRAVERSION = -RT-V0.7.40-00
> > +EXTRAVERSION = -RT-V0.7.40-00-RCU
> > NAME=Woozy Numbat
> >
> > # *DOCUMENTATION*
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/
