Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 06:37:00 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com,
        ldr709@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] SRCU rewrite
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20161114183636.GA28589@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20161115014445.GC12110@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161115014445.GC12110@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20161115143700.GZ4127@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 12244
Lines: 281

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:44:45AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:36:36AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > SRCU uses two per-cpu counters: a nesting counter to count the number of
> > active critical sections, and a sequence counter to ensure that the nesting
> > counters don't change while they are being added together in
> > srcu_readers_active_idx_check().
> > 
> > This patch instead uses per-cpu lock and unlock counters. Because the both
> > counters only increase and srcu_readers_active_idx_check() reads the unlock
> > counter before the lock counter, this achieves the same end without having
> > to increment two different counters in srcu_read_lock(). This also saves a
> > smp_mb() in srcu_readers_active_idx_check().
> > 
> > A possible problem with this patch is that it can only handle
> > ULONG_MAX - NR_CPUS simultaneous readers, whereas the old version could
> > handle up to ULONG_MAX.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > [ paulmck: Queued for 4.12, that is, merge window after this coming one. ]
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > index dc8eb63c6568..0caea34d8c5f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > @@ -34,8 +34,8 @@
> >  #include <linux/workqueue.h>
> >  
> >  struct srcu_struct_array {
> > -	unsigned long c[2];
> > -	unsigned long seq[2];
> > +	unsigned long lock_count[2];
> > +	unsigned long unlock_count[2];
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct rcu_batch {
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > index 87c51225ceec..6e4fd7680c70 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > @@ -564,10 +564,24 @@ static void srcu_torture_stats(void)
> >  	pr_alert("%s%s per-CPU(idx=%d):",
> >  		 torture_type, TORTURE_FLAG, idx);
> >  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		unsigned long l0, l1;
> > +		unsigned long u0, u1;
> >  		long c0, c1;
> > +		struct srcu_struct_array* counts =
> > +			per_cpu_ptr(srcu_ctlp->per_cpu_ref, cpu);
> >  
> > -		c0 = (long)per_cpu_ptr(srcu_ctlp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[!idx];
> > -		c1 = (long)per_cpu_ptr(srcu_ctlp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[idx];
> > +		u0 = counts->unlock_count[!idx];
> > +		u1 = counts->unlock_count[idx];
> > +
> > +		/* Make sure that a lock is always counted if the corresponding
> > +		   unlock is counted. */
> > +		smp_rmb();
> > +
> > +		l0 = counts->lock_count[!idx];
> > +		l1 = counts->lock_count[idx];
> > +
> > +		c0 = (long)(l0 - u0);
> > +		c1 = (long)(l1 - u1);
> >  		pr_cont(" %d(%ld,%ld)", cpu, c0, c1);
> >  	}
> >  	pr_cont("\n");
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > index 9b9cdd549caa..edfdfadec821 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > @@ -141,34 +141,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(init_srcu_struct);
> >  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
> >  
> >  /*
> > - * Returns approximate total of the readers' ->seq[] values for the
> > + * Returns approximate total of the readers' ->lock_count[] values for the
> >   * rank of per-CPU counters specified by idx.
> >   */
> > -static unsigned long srcu_readers_seq_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> > +static unsigned long srcu_readers_lock_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> >  {
> >  	int cpu;
> >  	unsigned long sum = 0;
> >  	unsigned long t;
> >  
> >  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > -		t = READ_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->seq[idx]);
> > +		struct srcu_struct_array* cpu_counts =
> > +			per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu);
> > +		t = READ_ONCE(cpu_counts->lock_count[idx]);
> >  		sum += t;
> >  	}
> >  	return sum;
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > - * Returns approximate number of readers active on the specified rank
> > - * of the per-CPU ->c[] counters.
> > + * Returns approximate total of the readers' ->unlock_count[] values for the
> > + * rank of per-CPU counters specified by idx.
> >   */
> > -static unsigned long srcu_readers_active_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> > +static unsigned long srcu_readers_unlock_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> >  {
> >  	int cpu;
> >  	unsigned long sum = 0;
> >  	unsigned long t;
> >  
> >  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > -		t = READ_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[idx]);
> > +		struct srcu_struct_array* cpu_counts =
> > +			per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu);
> > +		t = READ_ONCE(cpu_counts->unlock_count[idx]);
> >  		sum += t;
> >  	}
> >  	return sum;
> > @@ -176,79 +180,43 @@ static unsigned long srcu_readers_active_idx(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * Return true if the number of pre-existing readers is determined to
> > - * be stably zero.  An example unstable zero can occur if the call
> > - * to srcu_readers_active_idx() misses an __srcu_read_lock() increment,
> > - * but due to task migration, sees the corresponding __srcu_read_unlock()
> > - * decrement.  This can happen because srcu_readers_active_idx() takes
> > - * time to sum the array, and might in fact be interrupted or preempted
> > - * partway through the summation.
> > + * be zero.
> >   */
> >  static bool srcu_readers_active_idx_check(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long seq;
> > +	unsigned long unlocks;
> >  
> > -	seq = srcu_readers_seq_idx(sp, idx);
> > +	unlocks = srcu_readers_unlock_idx(sp, idx);
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * The following smp_mb() A pairs with the smp_mb() B located in
> > -	 * __srcu_read_lock().  This pairing ensures that if an
> > -	 * __srcu_read_lock() increments its counter after the summation
> > -	 * in srcu_readers_active_idx(), then the corresponding SRCU read-side
> > -	 * critical section will see any changes made prior to the start
> > -	 * of the current SRCU grace period.
> > +	 * Make sure that a lock is always counted if the corresponding unlock
> > +	 * is counted. Needs to be a smp_mb() as the read side may contain a
> > +	 * read from a variable that is written to before the synchronize_srcu()
> > +	 * in the write side. In this case smp_mb()s A and B act like the store
> > +	 * buffering pattern.
> >  	 *
> > -	 * Also, if the above call to srcu_readers_seq_idx() saw the
> > -	 * increment of ->seq[], then the call to srcu_readers_active_idx()
> > -	 * must see the increment of ->c[].
> > +	 * This smp_mb() also pairs with smp_mb() C to prevent writes after the
> > +	 * synchronize_srcu() from being executed before the grace period ends.
> >  	 */
> >  	smp_mb(); /* A */
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * Note that srcu_readers_active_idx() can incorrectly return
> > -	 * zero even though there is a pre-existing reader throughout.
> > -	 * To see this, suppose that task A is in a very long SRCU
> > -	 * read-side critical section that started on CPU 0, and that
> > -	 * no other reader exists, so that the sum of the counters
> > -	 * is equal to one.  Then suppose that task B starts executing
> > -	 * srcu_readers_active_idx(), summing up to CPU 1, and then that
> > -	 * task C starts reading on CPU 0, so that its increment is not
> > -	 * summed, but finishes reading on CPU 2, so that its decrement
> > -	 * -is- summed.  Then when task B completes its sum, it will
> > -	 * incorrectly get zero, despite the fact that task A has been
> > -	 * in its SRCU read-side critical section the whole time.
> > -	 *
> > -	 * We therefore do a validation step should srcu_readers_active_idx()
> > -	 * return zero.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (srcu_readers_active_idx(sp, idx) != 0)
> > -		return false;
> > -
> > -	/*
> > -	 * The remainder of this function is the validation step.
> > -	 * The following smp_mb() D pairs with the smp_mb() C in
> > -	 * __srcu_read_unlock().  If the __srcu_read_unlock() was seen
> > -	 * by srcu_readers_active_idx() above, then any destructive
> > -	 * operation performed after the grace period will happen after
> > -	 * the corresponding SRCU read-side critical section.
> > +	 * If the locks are the same as the unlocks, then there must of have
> > +	 * been no readers on this index at some time in between. This does not
> > +	 * mean that there are no more readers, as one could have read the
> > +	 * current index but have incremented the lock counter yet.
> >  	 *
> > -	 * Note that there can be at most NR_CPUS worth of readers using
> > -	 * the old index, which is not enough to overflow even a 32-bit
> > -	 * integer.  (Yes, this does mean that systems having more than
> > -	 * a billion or so CPUs need to be 64-bit systems.)  Therefore,
> > -	 * the sum of the ->seq[] counters cannot possibly overflow.
> > -	 * Therefore, the only way that the return values of the two
> > -	 * calls to srcu_readers_seq_idx() can be equal is if there were
> > -	 * no increments of the corresponding rank of ->seq[] counts
> > -	 * in the interim.  But the missed-increment scenario laid out
> > -	 * above includes an increment of the ->seq[] counter by
> > -	 * the corresponding __srcu_read_lock().  Therefore, if this
> > -	 * scenario occurs, the return values from the two calls to
> > -	 * srcu_readers_seq_idx() will differ, and thus the validation
> > -	 * step below suffices.
> > +	 * Note that there can be at most NR_CPUS worth of readers using the old
> > +	 * index that haven't incremented ->lock_count[] yet.  Therefore, the
> > +	 * sum of the ->lock_count[]s cannot increment enough times to overflow
> > +	 * and end up equal the sum of the ->unlock_count[]s, as long as there
> > +	 * are at most ULONG_MAX - NR_CPUS readers at a time.  (Yes, this does
> > +	 * mean that systems having more than a billion or so CPUs need to be
> > +	 * 64-bit systems.)  Therefore, the only way that the return values of
> > +	 * the two calls to srcu_readers_(un)lock_idx() can be equal is if there
> > +	 * are no active readers using this index.
> >  	 */
> > -	smp_mb(); /* D */
> > -
> > -	return srcu_readers_seq_idx(sp, idx) == seq;
> > +	return srcu_readers_lock_idx(sp, idx) == unlocks;
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -266,8 +234,12 @@ static bool srcu_readers_active(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> >  	unsigned long sum = 0;
> >  
> >  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > -		sum += READ_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[0]);
> > -		sum += READ_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu)->c[1]);
> > +		struct srcu_struct_array* cpu_counts =
> > +			per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, cpu);
> > +		sum += READ_ONCE(cpu_counts->lock_count[0]);
> > +		sum += READ_ONCE(cpu_counts->lock_count[1]);
> > +		sum -= READ_ONCE(cpu_counts->unlock_count[0]);
> > +		sum -= READ_ONCE(cpu_counts->unlock_count[1]);
> >  	}
> >  	return sum;
> >  }
> > @@ -298,9 +270,8 @@ int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> >  	int idx;
> >  
> >  	idx = READ_ONCE(sp->completed) & 0x1;
> > -	__this_cpu_inc(sp->per_cpu_ref->c[idx]);
> > +	__this_cpu_inc(sp->per_cpu_ref->lock_count[idx]);
> >  	smp_mb(); /* B */  /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */
> > -	__this_cpu_inc(sp->per_cpu_ref->seq[idx]);
> >  	return idx;
> 
> __srcu_read_lock() used to be called with preemption disabled. I guess
> the reason was because we have two percpu variables to increase. So with
> only one percpu right, could we remove the preempt_{dis,en}able() in
> srcu_read_lock() and use this_cpu_inc() here?

Quite possibly...

							Thanx, Paul

> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock);
> > @@ -314,7 +285,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock);
> >  void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> >  {
> >  	smp_mb(); /* C */  /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */
> > -	this_cpu_dec(sp->per_cpu_ref->c[idx]);
> > +	this_cpu_inc(sp->per_cpu_ref->unlock_count[idx]);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
> >  
> > @@ -349,7 +320,7 @@ static bool try_check_zero(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx, int trycount)
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * Increment the ->completed counter so that future SRCU readers will
> > - * use the other rank of the ->c[] and ->seq[] arrays.  This allows
> > + * use the other rank of the ->(un)lock_count[] arrays.  This allows
> >   * us to wait for pre-existing readers in a starvation-free manner.
> >   */
> >  static void srcu_flip(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> >