summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/kernel/rcu
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>2014-06-11 10:32:47 -0700
committerPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>2014-07-09 09:15:01 -0700
commit48bd8e9b82a750b983823f391c67e70553757afa (patch)
treef3f2e7ea11caaad814c88cc7d9f25671476abfe7 /kernel/rcu
parentdfeb9765ce3c33cb3cbc5f16db423f1c58a4cc55 (diff)
rcu: Check both root and current rcu_node when setting up future grace period
The rcu_start_future_gp() function checks the current rcu_node's ->gpnum and ->completed twice, once without ACCESS_ONCE() and once with it. Which is pointless because we hold that rcu_node's ->lock at that point. The intent was to check the current rcu_node structure and the root rcu_node structure, the latter locklessly with ACCESS_ONCE(). This commit therefore makes that change. The reason that it is safe to locklessly check the root rcu_nodes's ->gpnum and ->completed fields is that we hold the current rcu_node's ->lock, which constrains the root rcu_node's ability to change its ->gpnum and ->completed fields. Of course, if there is a single rcu_node structure, then rnp_root==rnp, and holding the lock prevents all changes. If there is more than one rcu_node structure, then the code updates the fields in the following order: 1. Increment rnp_root->gpnum to start new grace period. 2. Increment rnp->gpnum to initialize the current rcu_node, continuing initialization for the new grace period. 3. Increment rnp_root->completed to end the current grace period. 4. Increment rnp->completed to continue cleaning up after the old grace period. So there are four possible combinations of relative values of these four fields: N N N N: RCU idle, new grace period must be initiated. Although rnp_root->gpnum might be incremented immediately after we check, that will just result in unnecessary work. The grace period already started, and we try to start it. N+1 N N N: RCU grace period just started. No further change is possible because we hold rnp->lock, so the checks of rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed are stable. We know that our request for a future grace period will be seen during grace-period cleanup. N+1 N N+1 N: RCU grace period is ongoing. Because rnp->gpnum is different than rnp->completed, we won't even look at rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed, so the possible concurrent change to rnp_root->completed does not matter. We know that our request for a future grace period will be seen during grace-period cleanup, which cannot pass this rcu_node because we hold its ->lock. N+1 N+1 N+1 N: RCU grace period has ended, but not yet been cleaned up. Because rnp->gpnum is different than rnp->completed, we won't look at rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed, so the possible concurrent change to rnp_root->completed does not matter. We know that our request for a future grace period will be seen during grace-period cleanup, which cannot pass this rcu_node because we hold its ->lock. Therefore, despite initial appearances, the lockless check is safe. Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com> [ paulmck: Update comment to say why the lockless check is safe. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/rcu')
-rw-r--r--kernel/rcu/tree.c10
1 files changed, 8 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index bcd635e42841..3f93033d3c61 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1305,10 +1305,16 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
* believe that a grace period is in progress, then we must wait
* for the one following, which is in "c". Because our request
* will be noticed at the end of the current grace period, we don't
- * need to explicitly start one.
+ * need to explicitly start one. We only do the lockless check
+ * of rnp_root's fields if the current rcu_node structure thinks
+ * there is no grace period in flight, and because we hold rnp->lock,
+ * the only possible change is when rnp_root's two fields are
+ * equal, in which case rnp_root->gpnum might be concurrently
+ * incremented. But that is OK, as it will just result in our
+ * doing some extra useless work.
*/
if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed ||
- ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->completed)) {
+ ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->completed)) {
rnp->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleaf"));
goto out;