Re: [PATCH 2/2] dynamic configuration for remote rcu callback processing

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

On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:39:58PM -0500, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> This patch add the ability to dynamically configure processors for remote
> rcu callback processing.  It applies on top of PATCH 1/2.

OK...  So the reason some of the races in 1/2 were not a problem is
that that patch did not allow any changes in the group of CPUs that
have their RCU callbacks processed by other CPUs.  However, I don't
see how the patch below covers some of them.  So I just called them
out in the wrong patch.  ;-)

Comments below.

							Thanx, Paul

> Signed-off-by: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
> 
> Index: linux/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/rcupdate.h	2006-04-03 15:26:38.743863052 -0500
> +++ linux/include/linux/rcupdate.h	2006-04-03 15:26:43.863355795 -0500
> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ struct rcu_data {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>  	long		last_rs_qlen;	 /* qlen during the last resched */
>  	spinlock_t	rmlock;		 /* for use with remote callback */
> +	short		batch_stat;	 /* indicate processing being done */
>  #endif
>  };
>  
> Index: linux/kernel/rcupdate.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/rcupdate.c	2006-04-03 15:26:38.743863052 -0500
> +++ linux/kernel/rcupdate.c	2006-04-03 15:26:43.867355399 -0500
> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ static int rcu_next_remotercu(void)
>  /*
>   * Configure a cpu for remote rcu callback processing.
>   */
> -static int rcu_set_remote_rcu(int cpu) {
> +int rcu_set_remote_rcu(int cpu) {
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	if (cpu < NR_CPUS) {
> @@ -206,11 +206,12 @@ static int rcu_set_remote_rcu(int cpu) {
>  	} else
>  		return 1;
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_set_remote_rcu);
>  
>  /*
>   * Configure a cpu for standard rcu callback processing.
>   */
> -static void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu) {
> +void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu) {
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	if (cpu < NR_CPUS) {
> @@ -219,6 +220,7 @@ static void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpu_remotercu_lock, flags);
>  	}
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_clear_remote_rcu);
>  
>  /*
>   * Configure a set of cpus at boot time for remote rcu callback
> @@ -238,7 +240,6 @@ static int __init rcu_remotercu_cpu_setu
>  
>  __setup ("remotercu=", rcu_remotercu_cpu_setup);
>  #else
> -static int rcu_callbacks_processed_remotely(int cpu) { return 0; }
>  static int rcu_process_remote(int cpu) { return 0; }
>  static void rcu_clear_remote_rcu(int cpu) {}
>  #endif
> @@ -650,8 +651,16 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(stru
>  	}
>  
>  	rcu_check_quiescent_state(rcp, rdp);
> -	if (!rcu_callbacks_processed_remotely(cpu) && rdp->donelist)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +	if (rdp->donelist && !rcu_callbacks_processed_remotely(cpu) &&
> +			(cmpxchg(&rdp->batch_stat, 0, 1)) == 0) {

I have to ask...  Why can't we just use a spinlock here?  This code
is effectively using batch_stat as a spinlock, right?

>  		rcu_do_batch(rdp);
> +		rdp->batch_stat = 0;
> +	}
> +#else
> +	if (rdp->donelist)
> +		rcu_do_batch(rdp);
> +#endif
>  }
>  
>  static void rcu_process_callbacks(unsigned long unused)
> @@ -692,15 +701,25 @@ static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks
>  	 */
>  	rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu);
>  	if (spin_trylock_irq(&rdp->rmlock)) {
> -		if ((list=xchg(&rdp->donelist, NULL))!=NULL)
> -			rdp->donetail = &rdp->donelist;
> +		/*
> +		 * batch_stat ensures cpu isn't still running rcu_do_batch.
> +		 * This can happen if we've just configured on the fly.
> +		 */
> +		if (cmpxchg(&rdp->batch_stat, 0, 2) == 0) {

Again, why not just a spinlock?  The value 1 vs. 2 does not seem to
be used.

> +			list=xchg(&rdp->donelist, NULL);
> +			if (list != NULL)
> +				rdp->donetail = &rdp->donelist;
> +		}
>  		spin_unlock_irq(&rdp->rmlock);
>  	}
>  
>  	rdp_bh = &per_cpu(rcu_bh_data, cpu);
>  	if (spin_trylock_irq(&rdp_bh->rmlock)) {
> -		if ((list_bh=xchg(&rdp_bh->donelist, NULL))!=NULL)
> -			rdp_bh->donetail = &rdp_bh->donelist;
> +		if (cmpxchg(&rdp_bh->batch_stat, 0, 2) == 0) {
> +			list_bh=xchg(&rdp_bh->donelist, NULL);
> +			if (list_bh != NULL)
> +				rdp_bh->donetail = &rdp_bh->donelist;
> +		}
>  		spin_unlock_irq(&rdp_bh->rmlock);
>  	}
>  
> @@ -717,6 +736,8 @@ static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks
>  		old = rdp->qlen;
>  		new = old - cnt;
>  	} while (cmpxchg(&rdp->qlen, old, new)!=old);
> +	if (rdp->batch_stat == 2)
> +		rdp->batch_stat = 0;
>  
>  	cnt=0;
>  	while (list_bh) {
> @@ -729,6 +750,8 @@ static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks
>  		old = rdp_bh->qlen;
>  		new = old - cnt;
>  	} while (cmpxchg(&rdp_bh->qlen, old, new)!=old);
> +	if (rdp_bh->batch_stat == 2)
> +		rdp_bh->batch_stat = 0;
>  }
>  #else
>  static void rcu_process_remote_callbacks(unsigned long unused) {}
-
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/