On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 08:36:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Why? Say, percpu_rw_semaphore, or upcoming changes in get_online_cpus(),
> (Peter, I think they should be unified anyway, but lets ignore this for
> now).
If you think the percpu_rwsem users can benefit sure.. So far its good I
didn't go the percpu_rwsem route for it looks like we got something
better at the end of it ;-)
> Or freeze_super() (which currently looks buggy), perhaps something
> else. This pattern
>
> writer:
> state = SLOW_MODE;
> synchronize_rcu/sched();
>
> reader:
> preempt_disable(); // or rcu_read_lock();
> if (state != SLOW_MODE)
> ...
>
> is quite common.
Well, if we make percpu_rwsem the defacto container of the pattern and
use that throughout, we'd have only a single implementation and don't
need the abstraction.
That said; we could still use the idea proposed; so let me take a look.
> // .h -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> struct xxx_struct {
> int gp_state;
>
> int gp_count;
> wait_queue_head_t gp_waitq;
>
> int cb_state;
> struct rcu_head cb_head;
> };
>
> static inline bool xxx_is_idle(struct xxx_struct *xxx)
> {
> return !xxx->gp_state; /* GP_IDLE */
> }
>
> extern void xxx_enter(struct xxx_struct *xxx);
> extern void xxx_exit(struct xxx_struct *xxx);
>
> // .c -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> enum { GP_IDLE = 0, GP_PENDING, GP_PASSED };
>
> enum { CB_IDLE = 0, CB_PENDING, CB_REPLAY };
>
> #define xxx_lock gp_waitq.lock
>
> void xxx_enter(struct xxx_struct *xxx)
> {
> bool need_wait, need_sync;
>
> spin_lock_irq(&xxx->xxx_lock);
> need_wait = xxx->gp_count++;
> need_sync = xxx->gp_state == GP_IDLE;
> if (need_sync)
> xxx->gp_state = GP_PENDING;
> spin_unlock_irq(&xxx->xxx_lock);
>
> BUG_ON(need_wait && need_sync);
>
> } if (need_sync) {
> synchronize_sched();
> xxx->gp_state = GP_PASSED;
> wake_up_all(&xxx->gp_waitq);
> } else if (need_wait) {
> wait_event(&xxx->gp_waitq, xxx->gp_state == GP_PASSED);
> } else {
> BUG_ON(xxx->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
> }
> }
>
> static void cb_rcu_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> {
> struct xxx_struct *xxx = container_of(rcu, struct xxx_struct, cb_head);
> long flags;
>
> BUG_ON(xxx->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
> BUG_ON(xxx->cb_state == CB_IDLE);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&xxx->xxx_lock, flags);
> if (xxx->gp_count) {
> xxx->cb_state = CB_IDLE;
This seems to be when a new xxx_begin() has happened after our last
xxx_end() and the sync_sched() from xxx_begin() merges with the
xxx_end() one and we're done.
> } else if (xxx->cb_state == CB_REPLAY) {
> xxx->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
> call_rcu_sched(&xxx->cb_head, cb_rcu_func);
A later xxx_exit() has happened, and we need to requeue to catch a later
GP.
> } else {
> xxx->cb_state = CB_IDLE;
> xxx->gp_state = GP_IDLE;
Nothing fancy happened and we're done.
> }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&xxx->xxx_lock, flags);
> }
>
> void xxx_exit(struct xxx_struct *xxx)
> {
> spin_lock_irq(&xxx->xxx_lock);
> if (!--xxx->gp_count) {
> if (xxx->cb_state == CB_IDLE) {
> xxx->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
> call_rcu_sched(&xxx->cb_head, cb_rcu_func);
> } else if (xxx->cb_state == CB_PENDING) {
> xxx->cb_state = CB_REPLAY;
> }
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&xxx->xxx_lock);
> }
So I don't immediately see the point of the concurrent write side;
percpu_rwsem wouldn't allow this and afaict neither would
freeze_super().
Other than that; yes this makes sense if you care about write side
performance and I think its solid.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>