On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 01:26:19PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * There are three lists for handling synchronize_rcu() users.
> > > + * A first list corresponds to new coming users, second for users
> > > + * which wait for a grace period and third is for which a grace
> > > + * period is passed.
> > > + */
> > > +static struct sr_normal_state {
> > > + struct llist_head srs_next; /* request a GP users. */
> > > + struct llist_head srs_wait; /* wait for GP users. */
> > > + struct llist_head srs_done; /* ready for GP users. */
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * In order to add a batch of nodes to already
> > > + * existing srs-done-list, a tail of srs-wait-list
> > > + * is maintained.
> > > + */
> > > + struct llist_node *srs_wait_tail;
> > > +} sr;
> >
> > Please put this in the rcu_state structure. Having the separate structure
> > is fine (it does group the fields nicely, plus you can take a pointer
> > to it in the functions using this state), but it is good to have the
> > state in one place.
> >
> > Also, please add the data structures in a separate patch. This might
> > save someone a lot of time and effort should someone breaks the kernel
> > in a way that depends on data-structure size. It would be much easier
> > for us if their bisection converged on the commit that adds the data
> > structures instead of the commit that also adds a lot of code.
> >
> I put the data under rcu_state in the patch-3 in this series. But i can
> create a separate patch for this purpose. Should i split it or not?
Bisection is best if the data-structure changes come first, keeping in
mind the example where the change in data size triggers some unrelated
bug. Better to have that bisection converge on a data-structure only
commit than on a more complex commit.
So it would be much better if the data started out in rcu_state.
> > > + /* Finally. */
> > > + complete(&rs->completion);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > +{
> > > + struct llist_node *done, *rcu, *next;
> > > +
> > > + done = llist_del_all(&sr.srs_done);
> > > + if (!done)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + llist_for_each_safe(rcu, next, done)
> > > + rcu_sr_normal_complete(rcu);
> > > +}
> > > +static DECLARE_WORK(sr_normal_gp_cleanup, rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work);
> >
> > Why not put this into the sr_normal_state structure? You can use
> > __WORK_INITIALIZER() to initialize it, as is done in a number of other
> > places in the kernel.
> >
> It is not a big problem. I can move it under "rcu_state" also!
Very good, thank you!
> > > +/*
> > > + * Helper function for rcu_gp_cleanup().
> > > + */
> > > +static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct llist_node *head, *tail;
> > > +
> > > + if (llist_empty(&sr.srs_wait))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + tail = READ_ONCE(sr.srs_wait_tail);
> > > + head = __llist_del_all(&sr.srs_wait);
> > > +
> > > + if (head) {
> > > + /* Can be not empty. */
> > > + llist_add_batch(head, tail, &sr.srs_done);
> > > + queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &sr_normal_gp_cleanup);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Helper function for rcu_gp_init().
> > > + */
> > > +static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct llist_node *head, *tail;
> > > +
> > > + if (llist_empty(&sr.srs_next))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + tail = llist_del_all(&sr.srs_next);
> > > + head = llist_reverse_order(tail);
> >
> > Again, reversing the order is going to cause trouble on large systems.
> > Let's please not do that. (I could have sworn that this was not present
> > in the last series...)
> >
> > > + /*
> > > + * A waiting list of GP should be empty on this step,
> > > + * since a GP-kthread, rcu_gp_init() -> gp_cleanup(),
> > > + * rolls it over. If not, it is a BUG, warn a user.
> > > + */
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!llist_empty(&sr.srs_wait));
> > > +
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(sr.srs_wait_tail, tail);
> > > + __llist_add_batch(head, tail, &sr.srs_wait);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rcu_sr_normal_add_req(struct rcu_synchronize *rs)
> > > +{
> > > + llist_add((struct llist_node *) &rs->head, &sr.srs_next);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Initialize a new grace period. Return false if no grace period required.
> > > */
> > > @@ -1456,6 +1556,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack bool rcu_gp_init(void)
> > > /* Record GP times before starting GP, hence rcu_seq_start(). */
> > > rcu_seq_start(&rcu_state.gp_seq);
> > > ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.gp_seq);
> > > + rcu_sr_normal_gp_init();
> > > trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq, TPS("start"));
> > > rcu_poll_gp_seq_start(&rcu_state.gp_seq_polled_snap);
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
> > > @@ -1825,6 +1926,9 @@ static noinline void rcu_gp_cleanup(void)
> > > }
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
> > >
> > > + // Make synchronize_rcu() users aware of the end of old grace period.
> > > + rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup();
> > > +
> > > // If strict, make all CPUs aware of the end of the old grace period.
> > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD))
> > > on_each_cpu(rcu_strict_gp_boundary, NULL, 0);
> > > @@ -3561,6 +3665,38 @@ static int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
> > > return true;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Helper function for the synchronize_rcu() API.
> > > + */
> > > +static void synchronize_rcu_normal(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rcu_synchronize rs;
> > > +
> > > + if (!READ_ONCE(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp)) {
> > > + wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_hurry);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + init_rcu_head_on_stack(&rs.head);
> > > + init_completion(&rs.completion);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * This code might be preempted, therefore take a GP
> > > + * snapshot before adding a request.
> > > + */
> > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_SR_NORMAL_DEBUG_GP))
> > > + rs.head.func = (void *) get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> > > +
> > > + rcu_sr_normal_add_req(&rs);
> > > +
> > > + /* Kick a GP and start waiting. */
> > > + (void) start_poll_synchronize_rcu();
> >
> > It is unfortunate that the debugging requires an extra timestamp.
> > The ways I can think of to avoid this have problems, though. If this
> > thing was replicated per leaf rcu_node structure, the usual approach
> > would be to protect it with that structure's ->lock.
> >
> Hmm.. a per-node approach can be deployed later. As discussed earlier :)
Agreed!
> Debugging part i do not follow, could you please elaborate a bit?
Let's not worry about this unless and until we need per-rcu_node lists
of tasks waiting on grace periods. At that point, we will know more
and things will be more clear.
Thanx, Paul
