diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 208 |
1 files changed, 126 insertions, 82 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt index 51525a30e8b..cbc180f9019 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt @@ -8,13 +8,12 @@ would cause. This list is based on experiences reviewing such patches over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! 0. Is RCU being applied to a read-mostly situation? If the data - structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then - you should strongly consider some other approach, unless - detailed performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless - the right tool for the job. Yes, you might think of RCU - as simply cutting overhead off of the readers and imposing it - on the writers. That is exactly why normal uses of RCU will - do much more reading than updating. + structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then you + should strongly consider some other approach, unless detailed + performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless the right + tool for the job. Yes, RCU does reduce read-side overhead by + increasing write-side overhead, which is exactly why normal uses + of RCU will do much more reading than updating. Another exception is where performance is not an issue, and RCU provides a simpler implementation. An example of this situation @@ -35,13 +34,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! If you choose #b, be prepared to describe how you have handled memory barriers on weakly ordered machines (pretty much all of - them -- even x86 allows reads to be reordered), and be prepared - to explain why this added complexity is worthwhile. If you - choose #c, be prepared to explain how this single task does not - become a major bottleneck on big multiprocessor machines (for - example, if the task is updating information relating to itself - that other tasks can read, there by definition can be no - bottleneck). + them -- even x86 allows later loads to be reordered to precede + earlier stores), and be prepared to explain why this added + complexity is worthwhile. If you choose #c, be prepared to + explain how this single task does not become a major bottleneck on + big multiprocessor machines (for example, if the task is updating + information relating to itself that other tasks can read, there + by definition can be no bottleneck). 2. Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of rcu_read_lock() and friends? These primitives are needed @@ -51,8 +50,10 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! actuarial risk of your kernel. As a rough rule of thumb, any dereference of an RCU-protected - pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock() or rcu_read_lock_bh() - or by the appropriate update-side lock. + pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(), + rcu_read_lock_sched(), or by the appropriate update-side lock. + Disabling of preemption can serve as rcu_read_lock_sched(), but + is less readable. 3. Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses? @@ -62,25 +63,27 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! of ways to handle this concurrency, depending on the situation: a. Use the RCU variants of the list and hlist update - primitives to add, remove, and replace elements on an - RCU-protected list. Alternatively, use the RCU-protected - trees that have been added to the Linux kernel. + primitives to add, remove, and replace elements on + an RCU-protected list. Alternatively, use the other + RCU-protected data structures that have been added to + the Linux kernel. This is almost always the best approach. b. Proceed as in (a) above, but also maintain per-element locks (that are acquired by both readers and writers) that guard per-element state. Of course, fields that - the readers refrain from accessing can be guarded by the - update-side lock. + the readers refrain from accessing can be guarded by + some other lock acquired only by updaters, if desired. This works quite well, also. c. Make updates appear atomic to readers. For example, - pointer updates to properly aligned fields will appear - atomic, as will individual atomic primitives. Operations - performed under a lock and sequences of multiple atomic - primitives will -not- appear to be atomic. + pointer updates to properly aligned fields will + appear atomic, as will individual atomic primitives. + Sequences of perations performed under a lock will -not- + appear to be atomic to RCU readers, nor will sequences + of multiple atomic primitives. This can work, but is starting to get a bit tricky. @@ -98,9 +101,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! a new structure containing updated values. 4. Weakly ordered CPUs pose special challenges. Almost all CPUs - are weakly ordered -- even i386 CPUs allow reads to be reordered. - RCU code must take all of the following measures to prevent - memory-corruption problems: + are weakly ordered -- even x86 CPUs allow later loads to be + reordered to precede earlier stores. RCU code must take all of + the following measures to prevent memory-corruption problems: a. Readers must maintain proper ordering of their memory accesses. The rcu_dereference() primitive ensures that @@ -113,14 +116,25 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent documentation aid, letting the person reading the code know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU. - - The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various - "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such as the - list_for_each_entry_rcu(). Note that it is perfectly - legal (if redundant) for update-side code to use - rcu_dereference() and the "_rcu()" list-traversal - primitives. This is particularly useful in code - that is common to readers and updaters. + Please note that compilers can also reorder code, and + they are becoming increasingly aggressive about doing + just that. The rcu_dereference() primitive therefore + also prevents destructive compiler optimizations. + + The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the + various "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such + as the list_for_each_entry_rcu(). Note that it is + perfectly legal (if redundant) for update-side code to + use rcu_dereference() and the "_rcu()" list-traversal + primitives. This is particularly useful in code that + is common to readers and updaters. However, lockdep + will complain if you access rcu_dereference() outside + of an RCU read-side critical section. See lockdep.txt + to learn what to do about this. + + Of course, neither rcu_dereference() nor the "_rcu()" + list-traversal primitives can substitute for a good + concurrency design coordinating among multiple updaters. b. If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu() and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order @@ -135,11 +149,14 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! readers. Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used, the hlist_del_rcu() primitive is required. - The list_replace_rcu() primitive may be used to - replace an old structure with a new one in an - RCU-protected list. + The list_replace_rcu() and hlist_replace_rcu() primitives + may be used to replace an old structure with a new one + in their respective types of RCU-protected lists. + + d. Rules similar to (4b) and (4c) apply to the "hlist_nulls" + type of RCU-protected linked lists. - d. Updates must ensure that initialization of a given + e. Updates must ensure that initialization of a given structure happens before pointers to that structure are publicized. Use the rcu_assign_pointer() primitive when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can @@ -151,16 +168,31 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! it cannot block. 6. Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from - any sort of irq context. Ditto for synchronize_sched() and - synchronize_srcu(). - -7. If the updater uses call_rcu(), then the corresponding readers - must use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(). If the updater - uses call_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must use - rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(). If the updater - uses call_rcu_sched(), then the corresponding readers must - disable preemption. Mixing things up will result in confusion - and broken kernels. + any sort of irq context. The same rule applies for + synchronize_rcu_bh(), synchronize_sched(), synchronize_srcu(), + synchronize_rcu_expedited(), synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(), + synchronize_sched_expedite(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited(). + + The expedited forms of these primitives have the same semantics + as the non-expedited forms, but expediting is both expensive + and unfriendly to real-time workloads. Use of the expedited + primitives should be restricted to rare configuration-change + operations that would not normally be undertaken while a real-time + workload is running. + +7. If the updater uses call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu(), then the + corresponding readers must use rcu_read_lock() and + rcu_read_unlock(). If the updater uses call_rcu_bh() or + synchronize_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must + use rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(). If the + updater uses call_rcu_sched() or synchronize_sched(), then + the corresponding readers must disable preemption, possibly + by calling rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched(). + If the updater uses synchronize_srcu(), the the corresponding + readers must use srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), + and with the same srcu_struct. The rules for the expedited + primitives are the same as for their non-expedited counterparts. + Mixing things up will result in confusion and broken kernels. One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh() @@ -212,6 +244,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! e. Periodically invoke synchronize_rcu(), permitting a limited number of updates per grace period. + The same cautions apply to call_rcu_bh() and call_rcu_sched(). + 9. All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(), list_for_each_continue_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(), @@ -219,7 +253,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! must be protected by appropriate update-side locks. RCU read-side critical sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), or by similar primitives such as - rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(). + rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(), in which case + the matching rcu_dereference() primitive must be used in order + to keep lockdep happy, in this case, rcu_dereference_bh(). The reason that it is permissible to use RCU list-traversal primitives when the update-side lock is held is that doing so @@ -229,7 +265,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! 10. Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section, and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must- use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros. Failing to do so - will break Alpha and confuse people reading your code. + will break Alpha, cause aggressive compilers to generate bad code, + and confuse people trying to read your code. 11. Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side @@ -239,15 +276,21 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! rcu_read_lock()-protected read-side critical sections, do -not- use synchronize_rcu(). - If you want to wait for some of these other things, you might - instead need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched(). + Similarly, disabling preemption is not an acceptable substitute + for rcu_read_lock(). Code that attempts to use preemption + disabling where it should be using rcu_read_lock() will break + in real-time kernel builds. + + If you want to wait for interrupt handlers, NMI handlers, and + code under the influence of preempt_disable(), you instead + need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched(). 12. Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere with softirq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_irqsave(), spin_lock_bh(), etc. Failing to disable irq on a given - acquisition of that lock will result in deadlock as soon as the - RCU callback happens to interrupt that acquisition's critical - section. + acquisition of that lock will result in deadlock as soon as + the RCU softirq handler happens to run your RCU callback while + interrupting that acquisition's critical section. 13. RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel. In many cases, the callback code simply wrappers around kfree(), so that this @@ -265,29 +308,30 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! not the case, a self-spawning RCU callback would prevent the victim CPU from ever going offline.) -14. SRCU (srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(), and synchronize_srcu()) - may only be invoked from process context. Unlike other forms of - RCU, it -is- permissible to block in an SRCU read-side critical - section (demarked by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()), - hence the "SRCU": "sleepable RCU". Please note that if you - don't need to sleep in read-side critical sections, you should - be using RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU is almost always - faster and easier to use than is SRCU. +14. SRCU (srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(), srcu_dereference(), + synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited()) may only + be invoked from process context. Unlike other forms of RCU, it + -is- permissible to block in an SRCU read-side critical section + (demarked by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()), hence the + "SRCU": "sleepable RCU". Please note that if you don't need + to sleep in read-side critical sections, you should be using + RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU is almost always faster and + easier to use than is SRCU. Also unlike other forms of RCU, explicit initialization and cleanup is required via init_srcu_struct() and cleanup_srcu_struct(). These are passed a "struct srcu_struct" that defines the scope of a given SRCU domain. Once initialized, the srcu_struct is passed to srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock() - and synchronize_srcu(). A given synchronize_srcu() waits only - for SRCU read-side critical sections governed by srcu_read_lock() - and srcu_read_unlock() calls that have been passd the same - srcu_struct. This property is what makes sleeping read-side - critical sections tolerable -- a given subsystem delays only - its own updates, not those of other subsystems using SRCU. - Therefore, SRCU is less prone to OOM the system than RCU would - be if RCU's read-side critical sections were permitted to - sleep. + synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited(). A given + synchronize_srcu() waits only for SRCU read-side critical + sections governed by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() + calls that have been passed the same srcu_struct. This property + is what makes sleeping read-side critical sections tolerable -- + a given subsystem delays only its own updates, not those of other + subsystems using SRCU. Therefore, SRCU is less prone to OOM the + system than RCU would be if RCU's read-side critical sections + were permitted to sleep. The ability to sleep in read-side critical sections does not come for free. First, corresponding srcu_read_lock() and @@ -311,12 +355,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! destructive operation, and -only- -then- invoke call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), or friends. - Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers, - it is the caller's responsibility to guarantee safety to - any subsequent readers. + Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers, it + is the caller's responsibility to guarantee that any subsequent + readers will execute safely. -16. The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- contain memory - barriers. The CPU (and in some cases, the compiler) is free - to reorder code into and out of RCU read-side critical sections. - It is the responsibility of the RCU update-side primitives to - deal with this. +16. The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- necessarily contain + memory barriers. You should therefore plan for the CPU + and the compiler to freely reorder code into and out of RCU + read-side critical sections. It is the responsibility of the + RCU update-side primitives to deal with this. |