diff options
| author | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2016-03-15 13:25:20 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2016-03-31 13:33:22 -0700 |
| commit | 6146f8df48cb52c46c256424bd03b567b889b7bb (patch) | |
| tree | 99b856af643697f0ed57dfda887c65c0c822371e /Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements | |
| parent | 11a65df5732167519937eabf16a870f5f8bde5ee (diff) | |
documentation: Get rid of duplicate .htmlx file
This commit uses colors to obscure the quick-quiz answers, thus getting
rid of the .htmlx file. Use your mouse to select the answer in order
to see the text. Alternatively, use your favorite scripting language
to remove all occurences of "<font color="ffffff">" from the file.
Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 889 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 2872 |
2 files changed, 428 insertions, 3333 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index c67a96a2a389..acdad96f78e9 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ -<!-- DO NOT HAND EDIT. --> -<!-- Instead, edit Requirements.htmlx and run 'sh htmlqqz.sh Requirements' --> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> @@ -65,8 +63,8 @@ All that aside, here are the categories of currently known RCU requirements: <p> This is followed by a <a href="#Summary">summary</a>, -which is in turn followed by the inevitable -<a href="#Answers to Quick Quizzes">answers to the quick quizzes</a>. +however, the answers to each quick quiz immediately follows the quiz. +Select the big white space with your mouse to see the answer. <h2><a name="Fundamental Requirements">Fundamental Requirements</a></h2> @@ -153,13 +151,27 @@ Therefore, the outcome: </blockquote> cannot happen. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 1"><b>Quick Quiz 1</b>:</a> -Wait a minute! -You said that updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently -with readers, but pre-existing readers will block -<tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>!!! -Just who are you trying to fool??? -<br><a href="#qq1answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Wait a minute! + You said that updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently + with readers, but pre-existing readers will block + <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>!!! + Just who are you trying to fool??? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + First, if updaters do not wish to be blocked by readers, they can use + <tt>call_rcu()</tt> or <tt>kfree_rcu()</tt>, which will + be discussed later. + Second, even when using <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>, the other + update-side code does run concurrently with readers, whether + pre-existing or not. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> This scenario resembles one of the first uses of RCU in @@ -210,9 +222,20 @@ to guarantee that <tt>do_something()</tt> never runs concurrently with <tt>recovery()</tt>, but with little or no synchronization overhead in <tt>do_something_dlm()</tt>. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 2"><b>Quick Quiz 2</b>:</a> -Why is the <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> on line 28 needed? -<br><a href="#qq2answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Why is the <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> on line 28 needed? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + Without that extra grace period, memory reordering could result in + <tt>do_something_dlm()</tt> executing <tt>do_something()</tt> + concurrently with the last bits of <tt>recovery()</tt>. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> In order to avoid fatal problems such as deadlocks, @@ -332,12 +355,27 @@ It also prevents any number of “interesting” compiler optimizations, for example, the use of <tt>gp</tt> as a scratch location immediately preceding the assignment. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 3"><b>Quick Quiz 3</b>:</a> -But <tt>rcu_assign_pointer()</tt> does nothing to prevent the -two assignments to <tt>p->a</tt> and <tt>p->b</tt> -from being reordered. -Can't that also cause problems? -<br><a href="#qq3answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + But <tt>rcu_assign_pointer()</tt> does nothing to prevent the + two assignments to <tt>p->a</tt> and <tt>p->b</tt> + from being reordered. + Can't that also cause problems? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + No, it cannot. + The readers cannot see either of these two fields until + the assignment to <tt>gp</tt>, by which time both fields are + fully initialized. + So reordering the assignments + to <tt>p->a</tt> and <tt>p->b</tt> cannot possibly + cause any problems. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> It is tempting to assume that the reader need not do anything special @@ -494,11 +532,42 @@ The <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt> on line 6 is similar to code protected by the corresponding update-side lock. </ol> -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 4"><b>Quick Quiz 4</b>:</a> -Without the <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt> or the -<tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt>, what destructive optimizations -might the compiler make use of? -<br><a href="#qq4answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Without the <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt> or the + <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt>, what destructive optimizations + might the compiler make use of? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + Let's start with what happens to <tt>do_something_gp()</tt> + if it fails to use <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt>. + It could reuse a value formerly fetched from this same pointer. + It could also fetch the pointer from <tt>gp</tt> in a byte-at-a-time + manner, resulting in <i>load tearing</i>, in turn resulting a bytewise + mash-up of two distince pointer values. + It might even use value-speculation optimizations, where it makes + a wrong guess, but by the time it gets around to checking the + value, an update has changed the pointer to match the wrong guess. + Too bad about any dereferences that returned pre-initialization garbage + in the meantime! + </font> + + <p><font color="ffffff"> + For <tt>remove_gp_synchronous()</tt>, as long as all modifications + to <tt>gp</tt> are carried out while holding <tt>gp_lock</tt>, + the above optimizations are harmless. + However, + with <tt>CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y</tt>, + <tt>sparse</tt> will complain if you + define <tt>gp</tt> with <tt>__rcu</tt> and then + access it without using + either <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt> or <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt>. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> In short, RCU's publish-subscribe guarantee is provided by the combination @@ -571,28 +640,156 @@ systems with more than one CPU: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> migrates in the meantime. </ol> -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 5"><b>Quick Quiz 5</b>:</a> -Given that multiple CPUs can start RCU read-side critical sections -at any time without any ordering whatsoever, how can RCU possibly tell whether -or not a given RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>? -<br><a href="#qq5answer">Answer</a> - -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 6"><b>Quick Quiz 6</b>:</a> -The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! -Are all these memory barriers <i> really</i> required? -<br><a href="#qq6answer">Answer</a> - -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 7"><b>Quick Quiz 7</b>:</a> -You claim that <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> and <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> -generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. -This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive -RCU read-side critical sections. -Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section -is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical -sections are done? -Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? -<br><a href="#qq7answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Given that multiple CPUs can start RCU read-side critical sections + at any time without any ordering whatsoever, how can RCU possibly + tell whether or not a given RCU read-side critical section starts + before a given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + If RCU cannot tell whether or not a given + RCU read-side critical section starts before a + given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>, + then it must assume that the RCU read-side critical section + started first. + In other words, a given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> + can avoid waiting on a given RCU read-side critical section only + if it can prove that <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> started first. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> + +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! + Are all these memory barriers <i> really</i> required? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + Yes, they really are required. + To see why the first guarantee is required, consider the following + sequence of events: + </font> + + <ol> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 1: <tt>q = rcu_dereference(gp); + /* Very likely to return p. */</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 0: <tt>list_del_rcu(p);</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> starts. + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 1: <tt>do_something_with(q->a); + /* No smp_mb(), so might happen after kfree(). */</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> returns. + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 0: <tt>kfree(p);</tt> + </font> + </ol> + + <p><font color="ffffff"> + Therefore, there absolutely must be a full memory barrier between the + end of the RCU read-side critical section and the end of the + grace period. + </font> + + <p><font color="ffffff"> + The sequence of events demonstrating the necessity of the second rule + is roughly similar: + </font> + + <ol> + <li> <font color="ffffff">CPU 0: <tt>list_del_rcu(p);</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff">CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> starts. + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff">CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff">CPU 1: <tt>q = rcu_dereference(gp); + /* Might return p if no memory barrier. */</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff">CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> returns. + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff">CPU 0: <tt>kfree(p);</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff"> + CPU 1: <tt>do_something_with(q->a); /* Boom!!! */</tt> + </font> + <li> <font color="ffffff">CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> + </font> + </ol> + + <p><font color="ffffff"> + And similarly, without a memory barrier between the beginning of the + grace period and the beginning of the RCU read-side critical section, + CPU 1 might end up accessing the freelist. + </font> + + <p><font color="ffffff"> + The “as if” rule of course applies, so that any + implementation that acts as if the appropriate memory barriers + were in place is a correct implementation. + That said, it is much easier to fool yourself into believing + that you have adhered to the as-if rule than it is to actually + adhere to it! +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> + +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + You claim that <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> and <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> + generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. + This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive + RCU read-side critical sections. + Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section + is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical + sections are done? + Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + In cases where <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> and <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> + generate absolutely no code, RCU infers quiescent states only at + special locations, for example, within the scheduler. + Because calls to <tt>schedule()</tt> had better prevent calling-code + accesses to shared variables from being rearranged across the call to + <tt>schedule()</tt>, if RCU detects the end of a given RCU read-side + critical section, it will necessarily detect the end of all prior + RCU read-side critical sections, no matter how aggressively the + compiler scrambles the code. + </font> + + <p><font color="ffffff"> + Again, this all assumes that the compiler cannot scramble code across + calls to the scheduler, out of interrupt handlers, into the idle loop, + into user-mode code, and so on. + But if your kernel build allows that sort of scrambling, you have broken + far more than just RCU! +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> Note that these memory-barrier requirements do not replace the fundamental @@ -637,9 +834,19 @@ inconvenience can be avoided through use of the <tt>call_rcu()</tt> and <tt>kfree_rcu()</tt> API members described later in this document. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 8"><b>Quick Quiz 8</b>:</a> -But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? -<br><a href="#qq8answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + It doesn't, just like normal RCU updates, which also do not exclude + RCU readers. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> This guarantee allows lookup code to be shared between read-side @@ -725,9 +932,20 @@ to do significant reordering. This is by design: Any significant ordering constraints would slow down these fast-path APIs. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 9"><b>Quick Quiz 9</b>:</a> -Can't the compiler also reorder this code? -<br><a href="#qq9answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Can't the compiler also reorder this code? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + No, the volatile casts in <tt>READ_ONCE()</tt> and + <tt>WRITE_ONCE()</tt> prevent the compiler from reordering in + this particular case. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <h3><a name="Readers Do Not Exclude Updaters">Readers Do Not Exclude Updaters</a></h3> @@ -780,10 +998,25 @@ new readers can start immediately after <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> starts, and <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> is under no obligation to wait for these new readers. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 10"><b>Quick Quiz 10</b>:</a> -Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. -Would the updater be able to rely on this? -<br><a href="#qq10answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. + Would the updater be able to rely on this? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + No. + Even if <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> were to wait until + all readers had completed, a new reader might start immediately after + <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> completed. + Therefore, the code following + <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> cannot rely on there being no readers + in any case. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <h3><a name="Grace Periods Don't Partition Read-Side Critical Sections"> Grace Periods Don't Partition Read-Side Critical Sections</a></h3> @@ -980,11 +1213,24 @@ grace period. As a result, an RCU read-side critical section cannot partition a pair of RCU grace periods. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 11"><b>Quick Quiz 11</b>:</a> -How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU read-side -critical section, would be required to partition the RCU read-side -critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? -<br><a href="#qq11answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU + read-side critical section, would be required to partition the RCU + read-side critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + In theory, an infinite number. + In practice, an unknown number that is sensitive to both implementation + details and timing considerations. + Therefore, even in practice, RCU users must abide by the + theoretical rather than the practical answer. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <h3><a name="Disabling Preemption Does Not Block Grace Periods"> Disabling Preemption Does Not Block Grace Periods</a></h3> @@ -1153,9 +1399,43 @@ synchronization primitives be legal within RCU read-side critical sections, including spinlocks, sequence locks, atomic operations, reference counters, and memory barriers. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 12"><b>Quick Quiz 12</b>:</a> -What about sleeping locks? -<br><a href="#qq12answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + What about sleeping locks? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + These are forbidden within Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical + sections because it is not legal to place a quiescent state + (in this case, voluntary context switch) within an RCU read-side + critical section. + However, sleeping locks may be used within userspace RCU read-side + critical sections, and also within Linux-kernel sleepable RCU + <a href="#Sleepable RCU"><font color="ffffff">(SRCU)</font></a> + read-side critical sections. + In addition, the -rt patchset turns spinlocks into a + sleeping locks so that the corresponding critical sections + can be preempted, which also means that these sleeplockified + spinlocks (but not other sleeping locks!) may be acquire within + -rt-Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical sections. + </font> + + <p><font color="ffffff"> + Note that it <i>is</i> legal for a normal RCU read-side + critical section to conditionally acquire a sleeping locks + (as in <tt>mutex_trylock()</tt>), but only as long as it does + not loop indefinitely attempting to conditionally acquire that + sleeping locks. + The key point is that things like <tt>mutex_trylock()</tt> + either return with the mutex held, or return an error indication if + the mutex was not immediately available. + Either way, <tt>mutex_trylock()</tt> returns immediately without + sleeping. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> It often comes as a surprise that many algorithms do not require a @@ -1378,12 +1658,27 @@ write an RCU callback function that takes too long. Long-running operations should be relegated to separate threads or (in the Linux kernel) workqueues. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 13"><b>Quick Quiz 13</b>:</a> -Why does line 19 use <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt>? -After all, <tt>call_rcu()</tt> on line 25 stores into the -structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. -Doesn't this mean that <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt> is required? -<br><a href="#qq13answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Why does line 19 use <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt>? + After all, <tt>call_rcu()</tt> on line 25 stores into the + structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. + Doesn't this mean that <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt> is required? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + Presumably the <tt>->gp_lock</tt> acquired on line 18 excludes + any changes, including any insertions that <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt> + would protect against. + Therefore, any insertions will be delayed until after + <tt>->gp_lock</tt> + is released on line 25, which in turn means that + <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt> suffices. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> However, all that <tt>remove_gp_cb()</tt> is doing is @@ -1430,14 +1725,31 @@ This was due to the fact that RCU was not heavily used within DYNIX/ptx, so the very few places that needed something like <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> simply open-coded it. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 14"><b>Quick Quiz 14</b>:</a> -Earlier it was claimed that <tt>call_rcu()</tt> and -<tt>kfree_rcu()</tt> allowed updaters to avoid being blocked -by readers. -But how can that be correct, given that the invocation of the callback -and the freeing of the memory (respectively) must still wait for -a grace period to elapse? -<br><a href="#qq14answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + Earlier it was claimed that <tt>call_rcu()</tt> and + <tt>kfree_rcu()</tt> allowed updaters to avoid being blocked + by readers. + But how can that be correct, given that the invocation of the callback + and the freeing of the memory (respectively) must still wait for + a grace period to elapse? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + We could define things this way, but keep in mind that this sort of + definition would say that updates in garbage-collected languages + cannot complete until the next time the garbage collector runs, + which does not seem at all reasonable. + The key point is that in most cases, an updater using either + <tt>call_rcu()</tt> or <tt>kfree_rcu()</tt> can proceed to the + next update as soon as it has invoked <tt>call_rcu()</tt> or + <tt>kfree_rcu()</tt>, without having to wait for a subsequent + grace period. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> But what if the updater must wait for the completion of code to be @@ -1862,11 +2174,26 @@ kthreads to be spawned. Therefore, invoking <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> during scheduler initialization can result in deadlock. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 15"><b>Quick Quiz 15</b>:</a> -So what happens with <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> during -scheduler initialization for <tt>CONFIG_PREEMPT=n</tt> -kernels? -<br><a href="#qq15answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + So what happens with <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> during + scheduler initialization for <tt>CONFIG_PREEMPT=n</tt> + kernels? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + In <tt>CONFIG_PREEMPT=n</tt> kernel, <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> + maps directly to <tt>synchronize_sched()</tt>. + Therefore, <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> works normally throughout + boot in <tt>CONFIG_PREEMPT=n</tt> kernels. + However, your code must also work in <tt>CONFIG_PREEMPT=y</tt> kernels, + so it is still necessary to avoid invoking <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> + during scheduler initialization. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> I learned of these boot-time requirements as a result of a series of @@ -2571,10 +2898,23 @@ If you needed to wait on multiple different flavors of SRCU (but why???), you would need to create a wrapper function resembling <tt>call_my_srcu()</tt> for each SRCU flavor. -<p><a name="Quick Quiz 16"><b>Quick Quiz 16</b>:</a> -But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need -the grace periods to be expedited? -<br><a href="#qq16answer">Answer</a> +<table> +<tr><th> </th></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr> +<tr><td> + But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need + the grace periods to be expedited? +</td></tr> +<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr> +<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff"> + If you are using expedited grace periods, there should be less penalty + for waiting on them in succession. + But if that is nevertheless a problem, you can use workqueues + or multiple kthreads to wait on the various expedited grace + periods concurrently. +</font></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +</table> <p> Again, it is usually better to adjust the RCU read-side critical sections @@ -2678,377 +3018,4 @@ and is provided under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States license. -<h3><a name="Answers to Quick Quizzes"> -Answers to Quick Quizzes</a></h3> - -<a name="qq1answer"></a> -<p><b>Quick Quiz 1</b>: -Wait a minute! -You said that updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently -with readers, but pre-existing readers will block -<tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>!!! -Just who are you trying to fool??? - - -</p><p><b>Answer</b>: -First, if updaters do not wish to be blocked by readers, they can use -<tt>call_rcu()</tt> or <tt>kfree_rcu()</tt>, which will -be discussed later. -Second, even when using <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>, the other -update-side code does run concurrently with readers, whether pre-existing -or not. - - -</p><p><a href="#Quick%20Quiz%201"><b>Back to Quick Quiz 1</b>.</a> - -<a name="qq2answer"></a> -<p><b>Quick Quiz 2</b>: -Why is the <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> on line 28 needed? - - -</p><p><b>Answer</b>: -Without that extra grace period, memory reordering could result in -<tt>do_something_dlm()</tt> executing <tt>do_something()</tt> -concurrently with the last bits of <tt>recovery()</tt>. - - -</p><p><a href="#Quick%20Quiz%202"><b>Back to Quick Quiz 2</b>.</a> - -<a name="qq3answer"></a> -<p><b>Quick Quiz 3</b>: -But <tt>rcu_assign_pointer()</tt> does nothing to prevent the -two assignments to <tt>p->a</tt> and <tt>p->b</tt> -from being reordered. -Can't that also cause problems? - - -</p><p><b>Answer</b>: -No, it cannot. -The readers cannot see either of these two fields until -the assignment to <tt>gp</tt>, by which time both fields are -fully initialized. -So reordering the assignments -to <tt>p->a</tt> and <tt>p->b</tt> cannot possibly -cause any problems. - - -</p><p><a href="#Quick%20Quiz%203"><b>Back to Quick Quiz 3</b>.</a> - -<a name="qq4answer"></a> -<p><b>Quick Quiz 4</b>: -Without the <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt> or the -<tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt>, what destructive optimizations -might the compiler make use of? - - -</p><p><b>Answer</b>: -Let's start with what happens to <tt>do_something_gp()</tt> -if it fails to use <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt>. -It could reuse a value formerly fetched from this same pointer. -It could also fetch the pointer from <tt>gp</tt> in a byte-at-a-time -manner, resulting in <i>load tearing</i>, in turn resulting a bytewise -mash-up of two distince pointer values. -It might even use value-speculation optimizations, where it makes a wrong -guess, but by the time it gets around to checking the value, an update -has changed the pointer to match the wrong guess. -Too bad about any dereferences that returned pre-initialization garbage -in the meantime! - -<p> -For <tt>remove_gp_synchronous()</tt>, as long as all modifications -to <tt>gp</tt> are carried out while holding <tt>gp_lock</tt>, -the above optimizations are harmless. -However, -with <tt>CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y</tt>, -<tt>sparse</tt> will complain if you -define <tt>gp</tt> with <tt>__rcu</tt> and then -access it without using -either <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt> or <tt>rcu_dereference()</tt>. - - -</p><p><a href="#Quick%20Quiz%204"><b>Back to Quick Quiz 4</b>.</a> - -<a name="qq5answer"></a> -<p><b>Quick Quiz 5</b>: -Given that multiple CPUs can start RCU read-side critical sections -at any time without any ordering whatsoever, how can RCU possibly tell whether -or not a given RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>? - - -</p><p><b>Answer</b>: -If RCU cannot tell whether or not a given -RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>, -then it must assume that the RCU read-side critical section -started first. -In other words, a given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> -can avoid waiting on a given RCU read-side critical section only -if it can prove that <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> started first. - - -</p><p><a href="#Quick%20Quiz%205"><b>Back to Quick Quiz 5</b>.</a> - -<a name="qq6answer"></a> -<p><b>Quick Quiz 6</b>: -The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! -Are all these memory barriers <i> really</i> required? - - -</p><p><b>Answer</b>: -Yes, they really are required. -To see why the first guarantee is required, consider the following -sequence of events: - -<ol> -<li> CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> -<li> CPU 1: <tt>q = rcu_dereference(gp); - /* Very likely to return p. */</tt> -<li> CPU 0: <tt>list_del_rcu(p);</tt> -<li> CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> starts. -<li> CPU 1: <tt>do_something_with(q->a); - /* No smp_mb(), so might happen after kfree(). */</tt> -<li> CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> -<li> CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> returns. -<li> CPU 0: <tt>kfree(p);</tt> -</ol> - -<p> -Therefore, there absolutely must be a full memory barrier between the -end of the RCU read-side critical section and the end of the -grace period. - -<p> -The sequence of events demonstrating the necessity of the second rule -is roughly similar: - -<ol> -<li> CPU 0: <tt>list_del_rcu(p);</tt> -<li> CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> starts. -<li> CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> -<li> CPU 1: <tt>q = rcu_dereference(gp); - /* Might return p if no memory barrier. */</tt> -<li> CPU 0: <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> returns. -<li> CPU 0: <tt>kfree(p);</tt> -<li> CPU 1: <tt>do_something_with(q->a); /* Boom!!! */</tt> -<li> CPU 1: <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> -</ol> - -<p> -And similarly, without a memory barrier between the beginning of the -grace period and the beginning of the RCU read-side critical section, -CPU 1 might end up accessing the freelist. - -<p> -The “as if” rule of course applies, so that any implementation -that acts as if the appropriate memory barriers were in place is a -correct implementation. -That said, it is much easier to fool yourself into believing that you have -adhered to the as-if rule than it is to actually adhere to it! - - -</p><p><a href="#Quick%20Quiz%206"><b>Back to Quick Quiz 6</b>.</a> - -<a name="qq7answer"></a> -<p><b>Quick Quiz 7</b>: -You claim that <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> and <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> -generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. -This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive -RCU read-side critical sections. -Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section -is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical -sections are done? -Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? - - -</p><p><b>Answer</b>: -In cases where <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> and <tt>rcu_read_unlock()</tt> -generate absolutely no code, RCU infers quiescent states only at -special locations, for example, within the scheduler. -Because calls to <tt>schedule()</tt> had better prevent calling-code -accesses to shared variables from being rearranged across the call to -<tt>schedule()</tt>, if RCU detects the end of a given RCU read-side -critical section, it will necessarily detect the end of all prior -RCU read-side critical sections, no matter how aggressively the -compiler scrambles the code. - -<p> -Again, this all assumes that the compiler cannot scramble code across -calls to the scheduler, out of interrupt handlers, into the idle loop, -into user-mode code, and so on. |