From: "Paul E. McKenney" paulmck@kernel.org
This commit prepares for array-index-free srcu_read_lock*() by moving the ->srcu_{un,}lock_count fields into a new srcu_ctr structure. This will permit ->srcu_index to be replaced by a per-CPU pointer to this structure.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney paulmck@kernel.org Cc: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Cc: Andrii Nakryiko andrii@kernel.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org Cc: Kent Overstreet kent.overstreet@linux.dev Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng boqun.feng@gmail.com --- include/linux/srcutree.h | 13 +++-- kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/srcutree.h b/include/linux/srcutree.h index b17814c9d1c7..c794d599db5c 100644 --- a/include/linux/srcutree.h +++ b/include/linux/srcutree.h @@ -17,14 +17,19 @@ struct srcu_node; struct srcu_struct;
+/* One element of the srcu_data srcu_ctrs array. */ +struct srcu_ctr { + atomic_long_t srcu_locks; /* Locks per CPU. */ + atomic_long_t srcu_unlocks; /* Unlocks per CPU. */ +}; + /* * Per-CPU structure feeding into leaf srcu_node, similar in function * to rcu_node. */ struct srcu_data { /* Read-side state. */ - atomic_long_t srcu_lock_count[2]; /* Locks per CPU. */ - atomic_long_t srcu_unlock_count[2]; /* Unlocks per CPU. */ + struct srcu_ctr srcu_ctrs[2]; /* Locks and unlocks per CPU. */ int srcu_reader_flavor; /* Reader flavor for srcu_struct structure? */ /* Values: SRCU_READ_FLAVOR_.* */
@@ -221,7 +226,7 @@ static inline int __srcu_read_lock_lite(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "RCU must be watching srcu_read_lock_lite()."); idx = READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx) & 0x1; - this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_lock_count[idx].counter); /* Y */ + this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks.counter); /* Y */ barrier(); /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */ return idx; } @@ -240,7 +245,7 @@ static inline int __srcu_read_lock_lite(struct srcu_struct *ssp) static inline void __srcu_read_unlock_lite(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) { barrier(); /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */ - this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_unlock_count[idx].counter); /* Z */ + this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks.counter); /* Z */ RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "RCU must be watching srcu_read_unlock_lite()."); }
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c index e69ce9d59abf..d7ee2f345e19 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c @@ -116,8 +116,9 @@ do { \ /* * Initialize SRCU per-CPU data. Note that statically allocated * srcu_struct structures might already have srcu_read_lock() and - * srcu_read_unlock() running against them. So if the is_static parameter - * is set, don't initialize ->srcu_lock_count[] and ->srcu_unlock_count[]. + * srcu_read_unlock() running against them. So if the is_static + * parameter is set, don't initialize ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_locks and + * ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_unlocks. */ static void init_srcu_struct_data(struct srcu_struct *ssp) { @@ -128,8 +129,6 @@ static void init_srcu_struct_data(struct srcu_struct *ssp) * Initialize the per-CPU srcu_data array, which feeds into the * leaves of the srcu_node tree. */ - BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(sdp->srcu_lock_count) != - ARRAY_SIZE(sdp->srcu_unlock_count)); for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { sdp = per_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda, cpu); spin_lock_init(&ACCESS_PRIVATE(sdp, lock)); @@ -429,10 +428,10 @@ static bool srcu_gp_is_expedited(struct srcu_struct *ssp) }
/* - * Computes approximate total of the readers' ->srcu_lock_count[] values - * for the rank of per-CPU counters specified by idx, and returns true if - * the caller did the proper barrier (gp), and if the count of the locks - * matches that of the unlocks passed in. + * Computes approximate total of the readers' ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_locks + * values for the rank of per-CPU counters specified by idx, and returns + * true if the caller did the proper barrier (gp), and if the count of + * the locks matches that of the unlocks passed in. */ static bool srcu_readers_lock_idx(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, bool gp, unsigned long unlocks) { @@ -443,7 +442,7 @@ static bool srcu_readers_lock_idx(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, bool gp, uns for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { struct srcu_data *sdp = per_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda, cpu);
- sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_lock_count[idx]); + sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks); if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU)) mask = mask | READ_ONCE(sdp->srcu_reader_flavor); } @@ -455,8 +454,8 @@ static bool srcu_readers_lock_idx(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, bool gp, uns }
/* - * Returns approximate total of the readers' ->srcu_unlock_count[] values - * for the rank of per-CPU counters specified by idx. + * Returns approximate total of the readers' ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_unlocks + * values for the rank of per-CPU counters specified by idx. */ static unsigned long srcu_readers_unlock_idx(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, unsigned long *rdm) { @@ -467,7 +466,7 @@ static unsigned long srcu_readers_unlock_idx(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, u for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { struct srcu_data *sdp = per_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda, cpu);
- sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_unlock_count[idx]); + sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks); mask = mask | READ_ONCE(sdp->srcu_reader_flavor); } WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) && (mask & (mask - 1)), @@ -510,9 +509,9 @@ static bool srcu_readers_active_idx_check(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) * been no readers on this index at some point in this function. * But there might be more readers, as a task might have read * the current ->srcu_idx but not yet have incremented its CPU's - * ->srcu_lock_count[idx] counter. In fact, it is possible + * ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks counter. In fact, it is possible * that most of the tasks have been preempted between fetching - * ->srcu_idx and incrementing ->srcu_lock_count[idx]. And there + * ->srcu_idx and incrementing ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks. And there * could be almost (ULONG_MAX / sizeof(struct task_struct)) tasks * in a system whose address space was fully populated with memory. * Call this quantity Nt. @@ -521,36 +520,36 @@ static bool srcu_readers_active_idx_check(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) * code for a long time. That now-preempted updater has already * flipped ->srcu_idx (possibly during the preceding grace period), * done an smp_mb() (again, possibly during the preceding grace - * period), and summed up the ->srcu_unlock_count[idx] counters. + * period), and summed up the ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks counters. * How many times can a given one of the aforementioned Nt tasks - * increment the old ->srcu_idx value's ->srcu_lock_count[idx] + * increment the old ->srcu_idx value's ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks * counter, in the absence of nesting? * * It can clearly do so once, given that it has already fetched - * the old value of ->srcu_idx and is just about to use that value - * to index its increment of ->srcu_lock_count[idx]. But as soon as - * it leaves that SRCU read-side critical section, it will increment - * ->srcu_unlock_count[idx], which must follow the updater's above - * read from that same value. Thus, as soon the reading task does - * an smp_mb() and a later fetch from ->srcu_idx, that task will be - * guaranteed to get the new index. Except that the increment of - * ->srcu_unlock_count[idx] in __srcu_read_unlock() is after the - * smp_mb(), and the fetch from ->srcu_idx in __srcu_read_lock() - * is before the smp_mb(). Thus, that task might not see the new - * value of ->srcu_idx until the -second- __srcu_read_lock(), - * which in turn means that this task might well increment - * ->srcu_lock_count[idx] for the old value of ->srcu_idx twice, - * not just once. + * the old value of ->srcu_idx and is just about to use that + * value to index its increment of ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks. + * But as soon as it leaves that SRCU read-side critical section, + * it will increment ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks, which must + * follow the updater's above read from that same value. Thus, + * as soon the reading task does an smp_mb() and a later fetch from + * ->srcu_idx, that task will be guaranteed to get the new index. + * Except that the increment of ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks + * in __srcu_read_unlock() is after the smp_mb(), and the fetch + * from ->srcu_idx in __srcu_read_lock() is before the smp_mb(). + * Thus, that task might not see the new value of ->srcu_idx until + * the -second- __srcu_read_lock(), which in turn means that this + * task might well increment ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks for the + * old value of ->srcu_idx twice, not just once. * * However, it is important to note that a given smp_mb() takes * effect not just for the task executing it, but also for any * later task running on that same CPU. * - * That is, there can be almost Nt + Nc further increments of - * ->srcu_lock_count[idx] for the old index, where Nc is the number - * of CPUs. But this is OK because the size of the task_struct - * structure limits the value of Nt and current systems limit Nc - * to a few thousand. + * That is, there can be almost Nt + Nc further increments + * of ->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks for the old index, where Nc + * is the number of CPUs. But this is OK because the size of + * the task_struct structure limits the value of Nt and current + * systems limit Nc to a few thousand. * * OK, but what about nesting? This does impose a limit on * nesting of half of the size of the task_struct structure @@ -581,10 +580,10 @@ static bool srcu_readers_active(struct srcu_struct *ssp) for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { struct srcu_data *sdp = per_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda, cpu);
- sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_lock_count[0]); - sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_lock_count[1]); - sum -= atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_unlock_count[0]); - sum -= atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_unlock_count[1]); + sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[0].srcu_locks); + sum += atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[1].srcu_locks); + sum -= atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[0].srcu_unlocks); + sum -= atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[1].srcu_unlocks); } return sum; } @@ -746,7 +745,7 @@ int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *ssp) int idx;
idx = READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx) & 0x1; - this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_lock_count[idx].counter); + this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks.counter); smp_mb(); /* B */ /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */ return idx; } @@ -760,7 +759,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock); void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) { smp_mb(); /* C */ /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */ - this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_unlock_count[idx].counter); + this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks.counter); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
@@ -777,7 +776,7 @@ int __srcu_read_lock_nmisafe(struct srcu_struct *ssp) struct srcu_data *sdp = raw_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
idx = READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx) & 0x1; - atomic_long_inc(&sdp->srcu_lock_count[idx]); + atomic_long_inc(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks); smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* B */ /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */ return idx; } @@ -793,7 +792,7 @@ void __srcu_read_unlock_nmisafe(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) struct srcu_data *sdp = raw_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* C */ /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */ - atomic_long_inc(&sdp->srcu_unlock_count[idx]); + atomic_long_inc(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock_nmisafe);
@@ -1123,17 +1122,17 @@ static void srcu_flip(struct srcu_struct *ssp) /* * Because the flip of ->srcu_idx is executed only if the * preceding call to srcu_readers_active_idx_check() found that - * the ->srcu_unlock_count[] and ->srcu_lock_count[] sums matched - * and because that summing uses atomic_long_read(), there is - * ordering due to a control dependency between that summing and - * the WRITE_ONCE() in this call to srcu_flip(). This ordering - * ensures that if this updater saw a given reader's increment from - * __srcu_read_lock(), that reader was using a value of ->srcu_idx - * from before the previous call to srcu_flip(), which should be - * quite rare. This ordering thus helps forward progress because - * the grace period could otherwise be delayed by additional - * calls to __srcu_read_lock() using that old (soon to be new) - * value of ->srcu_idx. + * the ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_unlocks and ->srcu_ctrs[].srcu_locks sums + * matched and because that summing uses atomic_long_read(), + * there is ordering due to a control dependency between that + * summing and the WRITE_ONCE() in this call to srcu_flip(). + * This ordering ensures that if this updater saw a given reader's + * increment from __srcu_read_lock(), that reader was using a value + * of ->srcu_idx from before the previous call to srcu_flip(), + * which should be quite rare. This ordering thus helps forward + * progress because the grace period could otherwise be delayed + * by additional calls to __srcu_read_lock() using that old (soon + * to be new) value of ->srcu_idx. * * This sum-equality check and ordering also ensures that if * a given call to __srcu_read_lock() uses the new value of @@ -1914,8 +1913,8 @@ void srcu_torture_stats_print(struct srcu_struct *ssp, char *tt, char *tf) struct srcu_data *sdp;
sdp = per_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda, cpu); - u0 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_unlock_count[!idx])); - u1 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_unlock_count[idx])); + u0 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[!idx].srcu_unlocks)); + u1 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_unlocks));
/* * Make sure that a lock is always counted if the corresponding @@ -1923,8 +1922,8 @@ void srcu_torture_stats_print(struct srcu_struct *ssp, char *tt, char *tf) */ smp_rmb();
- l0 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_lock_count[!idx])); - l1 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_lock_count[idx])); + l0 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[!idx].srcu_locks)); + l1 = data_race(atomic_long_read(&sdp->srcu_ctrs[idx].srcu_locks));
c0 = l0 - u0; c1 = l1 - u1;