Re: [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:08:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 18:24 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Counter-Based Approach
> > 
> > The current implementation in Ingo's CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT patch uses a
> > counter-based approach, which seems to work, but which can result in
> > indefinite-duration grace periods.  The following are very hazy thoughts
> > on how to get the benefits of this approach, but with short grace periods.
> > 
> > 1.	The basic trick is to maintain a pair of counters per CPU.
> > 	There would also be a global boolean variable that would select
> > 	one or the other of each pair.  The rcu_read_lock() primitive
> > 	would then increment the counter indicated by the boolean
> > 	corresponding to the CPU that it is currently running on.
> > 	It would also keep a pointer to that particular counter in
> > 	the task structure.  The rcu_read_unlock() primitive would
> > 	decrement this counter.  (And, yes, you would also have a
> > 	counter in the task structure so that only the outermost of
> > 	a set of nested rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs would
> > 	actually increment/decrement the per-CPU counter pairs.)
> > 
> > 	To force a grace period, one would invert the value of the
> > 	global boolean variable.  Once all the counters indicated
> > 	by the old value of the global boolean variable hit zero,
> > 	the corresponding set of RCU callbacks can be safely invoked.
> > 
> > 	The big problem with this approach is that a pair of inversions
> > 	of the global boolean variable could be spaced arbitrarily 
> > 	closely, especially when you consider that the read side code
> > 	can be preempted.  This could cause RCU callbacks to be invoked
> > 	prematurely, which could greatly reduce the life expectancy
> > 	of your kernel.
> 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> How about having another boolean indicating the ability to flip the
> selector boolean. This boolean would be set false on an actual flip and
> cleared during a grace period. That way the flips cannot ever interfere
> with one another such that the callbacks would be cleared prematurely.

But the flip is an integral part of detecting a grace period.  So, if I
understand your proposal correctly, I would have to flip to figure out
when it was safe to flip.

What am I missing here?

							Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/