On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Lai,
>>
>> On 02/25/2013 09:23 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> Hi, Srivatsa,
>>>
>>> The target of the whole patchset is nice for me.
>>
>> Cool! Thanks :-)
>>
>>> A question: How did you find out the such usages of
>>> "preempt_disable()" and convert them? did all are converted?
>>>
>>
>> Well, I scanned through the source tree for usages which implicitly
>> disabled CPU offline and converted them over. Its not limited to uses
>> of preempt_disable() alone - even spin_locks, rwlocks, local_irq_disable()
>> etc also help disable CPU offline. So I tried to dig out all such uses
>> and converted them. However, since the merge window is open, a lot of
>> new code is flowing into the tree. So I'll have to rescan the tree to
>> see if there are any more places to convert.
>>
>>> And I think the lock is too complex and reinvent the wheel, why don't
>>> you reuse the lglock?
>>
>> lglocks? No way! ;-) See below...
>>
>>> I wrote an untested draft here.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lai
>>>
>>> PS: Some HA tools(I'm writing one) which takes checkpoints of
>>> virtual-machines frequently, I guess this patchset can speedup the
>>> tools.
>>>
>>> From 01db542693a1b7fc6f9ece45d57cb529d9be5b66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:14:27 +0800
>>> Subject: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
>>>
>>> locality via lglock(trylock)
>>> read-preference read-write-lock via fallback rwlock_t
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/lglock.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> kernel/lglock.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/lglock.h b/include/linux/lglock.h
>>> index 0d24e93..30fe887 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/lglock.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/lglock.h
>>> @@ -67,4 +67,35 @@ void lg_local_unlock_cpu(struct lglock *lg, int cpu);
>>> void lg_global_lock(struct lglock *lg);
>>> void lg_global_unlock(struct lglock *lg);
>>>
>>> +struct lgrwlock {
>>> + unsigned long __percpu *fallback_reader_refcnt;
>>> + struct lglock lglock;
>>> + rwlock_t fallback_rwlock;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define DEFINE_LGRWLOCK(name) \
>>> + static DEFINE_PER_CPU(arch_spinlock_t, name ## _lock) \
>>> + = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; \
>>> + static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, name ## _refcnt); \
>>> + struct lgrwlock name = { \
>>> + .fallback_reader_refcnt = &name ## _refcnt, \
>>> + .lglock = { .lock = &name ## _lock } }
>>> +
>>> +#define DEFINE_STATIC_LGRWLOCK(name) \
>>> + static DEFINE_PER_CPU(arch_spinlock_t, name ## _lock) \
>>> + = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; \
>>> + static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, name ## _refcnt); \
>>> + static struct lgrwlock name = { \
>>> + .fallback_reader_refcnt = &name ## _refcnt, \
>>> + .lglock = { .lock = &name ## _lock } }
>>> +
>>> +static inline void lg_rwlock_init(struct lgrwlock *lgrw, char *name)
>>> +{
>>> + lg_lock_init(&lgrw->lglock, name);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw);
>>> #endif
>>> diff --git a/kernel/lglock.c b/kernel/lglock.c
>>> index 6535a66..463543a 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/lglock.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/lglock.c
>>> @@ -87,3 +87,48 @@ void lg_global_unlock(struct lglock *lg)
>>> preempt_enable();
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_global_unlock);
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> + struct lglock *lg = &lgrw->lglock;
>>> +
>>> + preempt_disable();
>>> + if (likely(!__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt))) {
>>> + if (likely(arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lg->lock)))) {
>>> + rwlock_acquire_read(&lg->lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> + read_lock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + __this_cpu_inc(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_local_read_lock);
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> + if (likely(!__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt))) {
>>> + lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (!__this_cpu_dec_return(*lgrw->fallback_reader_refcnt))
>>> + read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> +
>>> + preempt_enable();
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock);
>>> +
>>
>> If I read the code above correctly, all you are doing is implementing a
>> recursive reader-side primitive (ie., allowing the reader to call these
>> functions recursively, without resulting in a self-deadlock).
>>
>> But the thing is, making the reader-side recursive is the least of our
>> problems! Our main challenge is to make the locking extremely flexible
>> and also safe-guard it against circular-locking-dependencies and deadlocks.
>> Please take a look at the changelog of patch 1 - it explains the situation
>> with an example.
>
>
> My lock fixes your requirements(I read patch 1-6 before I sent). In
s/fixes/fits/
> readsite, lglock 's lock is token via trylock, the lglock doesn't
> contribute to deadlocks, we can consider it doesn't exist when we find
> deadlock from it. And global fallback rwlock doesn't result to
> deadlocks because it is read-preference(you need to inc the
> fallback_reader_refcnt inside the cpu-hotplug write-side, I don't do
> it in generic lgrwlock)
>
>
> If lg_rwlock_local_read_lock() spins, which means
> lg_rwlock_local_read_lock() spins on fallback_rwlock, and which means
> lg_rwlock_global_write_lock() took the lgrwlock successfully and
> return, and which means lg_rwlock_local_read_lock() will stop spinning
> when the write side finished.
>
>
>>
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> + lg_global_lock(&lgrw->lglock);
>>
>> This does a for-loop on all CPUs and takes their locks one-by-one. That's
>> exactly what we want to prevent, because that is the _source_ of all our
>> deadlock woes in this case. In the presence of perfect lock ordering
>> guarantees, this wouldn't have been a problem (that's why lglocks are
>> being used successfully elsewhere in the kernel). In the stop-machine()
>> removal case, the over-flexibility of preempt_disable() forces us to provide
>> an equally flexible locking alternative. Hence we can't use such per-cpu
>> locking schemes.
>>
>> You might note that, for exactly this reason, I haven't actually used any
>> per-cpu _locks_ in this synchronization scheme, though it is named as
>> "per-cpu rwlocks". The only per-cpu component here are the refcounts, and
>> we consciously avoid waiting/spinning on them (because then that would be
>> equivalent to having per-cpu locks, which are deadlock-prone). We use
>> global rwlocks to get the deadlock-safety that we need.
>>
>>> + write_lock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_global_write_lock);
>>> +
>>> +void lg_rwlock_global_write_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>>> +{
>>> + write_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>>> + lg_global_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_global_write_unlock);
>>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
