Re: [PATCH 3/3] rcu: join rcu_ctrlblk and rcu_state

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:48:02PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> This patch moves rcu_state into the rcu_ctrlblk. I think there
> are no reasons why we should have 2 different variables to control
> rcu state. Every user of rcu_state has also "rcu_ctrlblk *rcp" in
> the parameter list.

Looks good to me, passes one-hour RCU torture test.

Manfred, does the ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp take care
of your cache-line alignment concerns?

							Thanx, Paul

Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> --- 2.6.15/include/linux/rcupdate.h~3_JOIN	2006-01-10 18:52:29.000000000 +0300
> +++ 2.6.15/include/linux/rcupdate.h	2006-01-10 19:06:38.000000000 +0300
> @@ -65,6 +65,10 @@ struct rcu_ctrlblk {
>  	long	cur;		/* Current batch number.                      */
>  	long	completed;	/* Number of the last completed batch         */
>  	int	next_pending;	/* Is the next batch already waiting?         */
> +
> +	spinlock_t	lock	____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp;
> +	cpumask_t	cpumask; /* CPUs that need to switch in order    */
> +	                         /* for current batch to proceed.        */
>  } ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp;
>  
>  /* Is batch a before batch b ? */
> --- 2.6.15/kernel/rcupdate.c~3_JOIN	2006-01-10 18:52:36.000000000 +0300
> +++ 2.6.15/kernel/rcupdate.c	2006-01-10 19:06:38.000000000 +0300
> @@ -49,22 +49,18 @@
>  #include <linux/cpu.h>
>  
>  /* Definition for rcupdate control block. */
> -struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_ctrlblk = 
> -	{ .cur = -300, .completed = -300 };
> -struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_bh_ctrlblk =
> -	{ .cur = -300, .completed = -300 };
> -
> -/* Bookkeeping of the progress of the grace period */
> -struct rcu_state {
> -	spinlock_t	lock; /* Guard this struct and writes to rcu_ctrlblk */
> -	cpumask_t	cpumask; /* CPUs that need to switch in order    */
> -	                              /* for current batch to proceed.        */
> +struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_ctrlblk = {
> +	.cur = -300,
> +	.completed = -300,
> +	.lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
> +	.cpumask = CPU_MASK_NONE,
> +};
> +struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_bh_ctrlblk = {
> +	.cur = -300,
> +	.completed = -300,
> +	.lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
> +	.cpumask = CPU_MASK_NONE,
>  };
> -
> -static struct rcu_state rcu_state ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp =
> -	  {.lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, .cpumask = CPU_MASK_NONE };
> -static struct rcu_state rcu_bh_state ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp =
> -	  {.lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, .cpumask = CPU_MASK_NONE };
>  
>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_data) = { 0L };
>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_data) = { 0L };
> @@ -220,13 +216,13 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data
>   *   This is done by rcu_start_batch. The start is not broadcasted to
>   *   all cpus, they must pick this up by comparing rcp->cur with
>   *   rdp->quiescbatch. All cpus are recorded  in the
> - *   rcu_state.cpumask bitmap.
> + *   rcu_ctrlblk.cpumask bitmap.
>   * - All cpus must go through a quiescent state.
>   *   Since the start of the grace period is not broadcasted, at least two
>   *   calls to rcu_check_quiescent_state are required:
>   *   The first call just notices that a new grace period is running. The
>   *   following calls check if there was a quiescent state since the beginning
> - *   of the grace period. If so, it updates rcu_state.cpumask. If
> + *   of the grace period. If so, it updates rcu_ctrlblk.cpumask. If
>   *   the bitmap is empty, then the grace period is completed.
>   *   rcu_check_quiescent_state calls rcu_start_batch(0) to start the next grace
>   *   period (if necessary).
> @@ -234,9 +230,9 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data
>  /*
>   * Register a new batch of callbacks, and start it up if there is currently no
>   * active batch and the batch to be registered has not already occurred.
> - * Caller must hold rcu_state.lock.
> + * Caller must hold rcu_ctrlblk.lock.
>   */
> -static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp)
> +static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp)
>  {
>  	if (rcp->next_pending &&
>  			rcp->completed == rcp->cur) {
> @@ -251,11 +247,11 @@ static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_c
>  		/*
>  		 * Accessing nohz_cpu_mask before incrementing rcp->cur needs a
>  		 * Barrier  Otherwise it can cause tickless idle CPUs to be
> -		 * included in rsp->cpumask, which will extend graceperiods
> +		 * included in rcp->cpumask, which will extend graceperiods
>  		 * unnecessarily.
>  		 */
>  		smp_mb();
> -		cpus_andnot(rsp->cpumask, cpu_online_map, nohz_cpu_mask);
> +		cpus_andnot(rcp->cpumask, cpu_online_map, nohz_cpu_mask);
>  
>  	}
>  }
> @@ -265,13 +261,13 @@ static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_c
>   * Clear it from the cpu mask and complete the grace period if it was the last
>   * cpu. Start another grace period if someone has further entries pending
>   */
> -static void cpu_quiet(int cpu, struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp)
> +static void cpu_quiet(int cpu, struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp)
>  {
> -	cpu_clear(cpu, rsp->cpumask);
> -	if (cpus_empty(rsp->cpumask)) {
> +	cpu_clear(cpu, rcp->cpumask);
> +	if (cpus_empty(rcp->cpumask)) {
>  		/* batch completed ! */
>  		rcp->completed = rcp->cur;
> -		rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp);
> +		rcu_start_batch(rcp);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -281,7 +277,7 @@ static void cpu_quiet(int cpu, struct rc
>   * quiescent cycle, then indicate that it has done so.
>   */
>  static void rcu_check_quiescent_state(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp,
> -			struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> +					struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  {
>  	if (rdp->quiescbatch != rcp->cur) {
>  		/* start new grace period: */
> @@ -306,15 +302,15 @@ static void rcu_check_quiescent_state(st
>  		return;
>  	rdp->qs_pending = 0;
>  
> -	spin_lock(&rsp->lock);
> +	spin_lock(&rcp->lock);
>  	/*
>  	 * rdp->quiescbatch/rcp->cur and the cpu bitmap can come out of sync
>  	 * during cpu startup. Ignore the quiescent state.
>  	 */
>  	if (likely(rdp->quiescbatch == rcp->cur))
> -		cpu_quiet(rdp->cpu, rcp, rsp);
> +		cpu_quiet(rdp->cpu, rcp);
>  
> -	spin_unlock(&rsp->lock);
> +	spin_unlock(&rcp->lock);
>  }
>  
>  
> @@ -335,16 +331,16 @@ static void rcu_move_batch(struct rcu_da
>  }
>  
>  static void __rcu_offline_cpu(struct rcu_data *this_rdp,
> -	struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> +				struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  {
>  	/* if the cpu going offline owns the grace period
>  	 * we can block indefinitely waiting for it, so flush
>  	 * it here
>  	 */
> -	spin_lock_bh(&rsp->lock);
> +	spin_lock_bh(&rcp->lock);
>  	if (rcp->cur != rcp->completed)
> -		cpu_quiet(rdp->cpu, rcp, rsp);
> -	spin_unlock_bh(&rsp->lock);
> +		cpu_quiet(rdp->cpu, rcp);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&rcp->lock);
>  	rcu_move_batch(this_rdp, rdp->curlist, rdp->curtail);
>  	rcu_move_batch(this_rdp, rdp->nxtlist, rdp->nxttail);
>  
> @@ -354,9 +350,9 @@ static void rcu_offline_cpu(int cpu)
>  	struct rcu_data *this_rdp = &get_cpu_var(rcu_data);
>  	struct rcu_data *this_bh_rdp = &get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_data);
>  
> -	__rcu_offline_cpu(this_rdp, &rcu_ctrlblk, &rcu_state,
> +	__rcu_offline_cpu(this_rdp, &rcu_ctrlblk,
>  					&per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu));
> -	__rcu_offline_cpu(this_bh_rdp, &rcu_bh_ctrlblk, &rcu_bh_state,
> +	__rcu_offline_cpu(this_bh_rdp, &rcu_bh_ctrlblk,
>  					&per_cpu(rcu_bh_data, cpu));
>  	put_cpu_var(rcu_data);
>  	put_cpu_var(rcu_bh_data);
> @@ -375,7 +371,7 @@ static void rcu_offline_cpu(int cpu)
>   * This does the RCU processing work from tasklet context. 
>   */
>  static void __rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp,
> -			struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> +					struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  {
>  	if (rdp->curlist && !rcu_batch_before(rcp->completed, rdp->batch)) {
>  		*rdp->donetail = rdp->curlist;
> @@ -405,25 +401,23 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(stru
>  
>  		if (!rcp->next_pending) {
>  			/* and start it/schedule start if it's a new batch */
> -			spin_lock(&rsp->lock);
> +			spin_lock(&rcp->lock);
>  			rcp->next_pending = 1;
> -			rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp);
> -			spin_unlock(&rsp->lock);
> +			rcu_start_batch(rcp);
> +			spin_unlock(&rcp->lock);
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		local_irq_enable();
>  	}
> -	rcu_check_quiescent_state(rcp, rsp, rdp);
> +	rcu_check_quiescent_state(rcp, rdp);
>  	if (rdp->donelist)
>  		rcu_do_batch(rdp);
>  }
>  
>  static void rcu_process_callbacks(unsigned long unused)
>  {
> -	__rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_ctrlblk, &rcu_state,
> -				&__get_cpu_var(rcu_data));
> -	__rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_bh_ctrlblk, &rcu_bh_state,
> -				&__get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_data));
> +	__rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_ctrlblk, &__get_cpu_var(rcu_data));
> +	__rcu_process_callbacks(&rcu_bh_ctrlblk, &__get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_data));
>  }
>  
>  static int __rcu_pending(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/