diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/00-INDEX | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt | 149 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 34 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt | 371 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt | 24 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/trace.txt | 22 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 55 |
7 files changed, 596 insertions, 63 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/00-INDEX b/Documentation/RCU/00-INDEX index 1d7a885761f..f773a264ae0 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/00-INDEX +++ b/Documentation/RCU/00-INDEX @@ -8,8 +8,12 @@ listRCU.txt - Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Linked Lists lockdep.txt - RCU and lockdep checking +lockdep-splat.txt + - RCU Lockdep splats explained. NMI-RCU.txt - Using RCU to Protect Dynamic NMI Handlers +rcu_dereference.txt + - Proper care and feeding of return values from rcu_dereference() rcubarrier.txt - RCU and Unloadable Modules rculist_nulls.txt diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt index 273e654d7d0..2f0fcb2112d 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt @@ -31,6 +31,14 @@ has lapsed, so this approach may be used in non-GPL software, if desired. (In contrast, implementation of RCU is permitted only in software licensed under either GPL or LGPL. Sorry!!!) +In 1987, Rashid et al. described lazy TLB-flush [RichardRashid87a]. +At first glance, this has nothing to do with RCU, but nevertheless +this paper helped inspire the update-side batching used in the later +RCU implementation in DYNIX/ptx. In 1988, Barbara Liskov published +a description of Argus that noted that use of out-of-date values can +be tolerated in some situations. Thus, this paper provides some early +theoretical justification for use of stale data. + In 1990, Pugh [Pugh90] noted that explicitly tracking which threads were reading a given data structure permitted deferred free to operate in the presence of non-terminating threads. However, this explicit @@ -41,11 +49,11 @@ providing a fine-grained locking design, however, it would be interesting to see how much of the performance advantage reported in 1990 remains today. -At about this same time, Adams [Adams91] described ``chaotic relaxation'', -where the normal barriers between successive iterations of convergent -numerical algorithms are relaxed, so that iteration $n$ might use -data from iteration $n-1$ or even $n-2$. This introduces error, -which typically slows convergence and thus increases the number of +At about this same time, Andrews [Andrews91textbook] described ``chaotic +relaxation'', where the normal barriers between successive iterations +of convergent numerical algorithms are relaxed, so that iteration $n$ +might use data from iteration $n-1$ or even $n-2$. This introduces +error, which typically slows convergence and thus increases the number of iterations required. However, this increase is sometimes more than made up for by a reduction in the number of expensive barrier operations, which are otherwise required to synchronize the threads at the end @@ -55,7 +63,8 @@ is thus inapplicable to most data structures in operating-system kernels. In 1992, Henry (now Alexia) Massalin completed a dissertation advising parallel programmers to defer processing when feasible to simplify -synchronization. RCU makes extremely heavy use of this advice. +synchronization [HMassalinPhD]. RCU makes extremely heavy use of +this advice. In 1993, Jacobson [Jacobson93] verbally described what is perhaps the simplest deferred-free technique: simply waiting a fixed amount of time @@ -90,27 +99,29 @@ mechanism, which is quite similar to RCU [Gamsa99]. These operating systems made pervasive use of RCU in place of "existence locks", which greatly simplifies locking hierarchies and helps avoid deadlocks. -2001 saw the first RCU presentation involving Linux [McKenney01a] -at OLS. The resulting abundance of RCU patches was presented the -following year [McKenney02a], and use of RCU in dcache was first -described that same year [Linder02a]. +The year 2000 saw an email exchange that would likely have +led to yet another independent invention of something like RCU +[RustyRussell2000a,RustyRussell2000b]. Instead, 2001 saw the first +RCU presentation involving Linux [McKenney01a] at OLS. The resulting +abundance of RCU patches was presented the following year [McKenney02a], +and use of RCU in dcache was first described that same year [Linder02a]. Also in 2002, Michael [Michael02b,Michael02a] presented "hazard-pointer" techniques that defer the destruction of data structures to simplify non-blocking synchronization (wait-free synchronization, lock-free synchronization, and obstruction-free synchronization are all examples of -non-blocking synchronization). In particular, this technique eliminates -locking, reduces contention, reduces memory latency for readers, and -parallelizes pipeline stalls and memory latency for writers. However, -these techniques still impose significant read-side overhead in the -form of memory barriers. Researchers at Sun worked along similar lines -in the same timeframe [HerlihyLM02]. These techniques can be thought -of as inside-out reference counts, where the count is represented by the -number of hazard pointers referencing a given data structure rather than -the more conventional counter field within the data structure itself. -The key advantage of inside-out reference counts is that they can be -stored in immortal variables, thus allowing races between access and -deletion to be avoided. +non-blocking synchronization). The corresponding journal article appeared +in 2004 [MagedMichael04a]. This technique eliminates locking, reduces +contention, reduces memory latency for readers, and parallelizes pipeline +stalls and memory latency for writers. However, these techniques still +impose significant read-side overhead in the form of memory barriers. +Researchers at Sun worked along similar lines in the same timeframe +[HerlihyLM02]. These techniques can be thought of as inside-out reference +counts, where the count is represented by the number of hazard pointers +referencing a given data structure rather than the more conventional +counter field within the data structure itself. The key advantage +of inside-out reference counts is that they can be stored in immortal +variables, thus allowing races between access and deletion to be avoided. By the same token, RCU can be thought of as a "bulk reference count", where some form of reference counter covers all reference by a given CPU @@ -123,8 +134,10 @@ can be thought of in other terms as well. In 2003, the K42 group described how RCU could be used to create hot-pluggable implementations of operating-system functions [Appavoo03a]. -Later that year saw a paper describing an RCU implementation of System -V IPC [Arcangeli03], and an introduction to RCU in Linux Journal +Later that year saw a paper describing an RCU implementation +of System V IPC [Arcangeli03] (following up on a suggestion by +Hugh Dickins [Dickins02a] and an implementation by Mingming Cao +[MingmingCao2002IPCRCU]), and an introduction to RCU in Linux Journal [McKenney03a]. 2004 has seen a Linux-Journal article on use of RCU in dcache @@ -383,6 +396,21 @@ for Programming Languages and Operating Systems}" } } +@phdthesis{HMassalinPhD +,author="H. Massalin" +,title="Synthesis: An Efficient Implementation of Fundamental Operating +System Services" +,school="Columbia University" +,address="New York, NY" +,year="1992" +,annotation={ + Mondo optimizing compiler. + Wait-free stuff. + Good advice: defer work to avoid synchronization. See page 90 + (PDF page 106), Section 5.4, fourth bullet point. +} +} + @unpublished{Jacobson93 ,author="Van Jacobson" ,title="Avoid Read-Side Locking Via Delayed Free" @@ -671,6 +699,20 @@ Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell and Dipankar Sarma and Maneesh Soni" [Viewed October 18, 2004]" } +@conference{Michael02b +,author="Maged M. Michael" +,title="High Performance Dynamic Lock-Free Hash Tables and List-Based Sets" +,Year="2002" +,Month="August" +,booktitle="{Proceedings of the 14\textsuperscript{th} Annual ACM +Symposium on Parallel +Algorithms and Architecture}" +,pages="73-82" +,annotation={ +Like the title says... +} +} + @Conference{Linder02a ,Author="Hanna Linder and Dipankar Sarma and Maneesh Soni" ,Title="Scalability of the Directory Entry Cache" @@ -727,6 +769,24 @@ Andrea Arcangeli and Andi Kleen and Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell" } } +@conference{Michael02a +,author="Maged M. Michael" +,title="Safe Memory Reclamation for Dynamic Lock-Free Objects Using Atomic +Reads and Writes" +,Year="2002" +,Month="August" +,booktitle="{Proceedings of the 21\textsuperscript{st} Annual ACM +Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing}" +,pages="21-30" +,annotation={ + Each thread keeps an array of pointers to items that it is + currently referencing. Sort of an inside-out garbage collection + mechanism, but one that requires the accessing code to explicitly + state its needs. Also requires read-side memory barriers on + most architectures. +} +} + @unpublished{Dickins02a ,author="Hugh Dickins" ,title="Use RCU for System-V IPC" @@ -735,6 +795,17 @@ Andrea Arcangeli and Andi Kleen and Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell" ,note="private communication" } +@InProceedings{HerlihyLM02 +,author={Maurice Herlihy and Victor Luchangco and Mark Moir} +,title="The Repeat Offender Problem: A Mechanism for Supporting Dynamic-Sized, +Lock-Free Data Structures" +,booktitle={Proceedings of 16\textsuperscript{th} International +Symposium on Distributed Computing} +,year=2002 +,month="October" +,pages="339-353" +} + @unpublished{Sarma02b ,Author="Dipankar Sarma" ,Title="Some dcache\_rcu benchmark numbers" @@ -749,6 +820,19 @@ Andrea Arcangeli and Andi Kleen and Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell" } } +@unpublished{MingmingCao2002IPCRCU +,Author="Mingming Cao" +,Title="[PATCH]updated ipc lock patch" +,month="October" +,year="2002" +,note="Available: +\url{https://lkml.org/lkml/2002/10/24/262} +[Viewed February 15, 2014]" +,annotation={ + Mingming Cao's patch to introduce RCU to SysV IPC. +} +} + @unpublished{LinusTorvalds2003a ,Author="Linus Torvalds" ,Title="Re: {[PATCH]} small fixes in brlock.h" @@ -982,6 +1066,23 @@ Realtime Applications" } } +@article{MagedMichael04a +,author="Maged M. Michael" +,title="Hazard Pointers: Safe Memory Reclamation for Lock-Free Objects" +,Year="2004" +,Month="June" +,journal="IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems" +,volume="15" +,number="6" +,pages="491-504" +,url="Available: +\url{http://www.research.ibm.com/people/m/michael/ieeetpds-2004.pdf} +[Viewed March 1, 2005]" +,annotation={ + New canonical hazard-pointer citation. +} +} + @phdthesis{PaulEdwardMcKenneyPhD ,author="Paul E. McKenney" ,title="Exploiting Deferred Destruction: diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt index 7703ec73a9b..877947130eb 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt @@ -114,12 +114,16 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/wiz_2637.html The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent - documentation aid, letting the person reading the code - know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU. + documentation aid, letting the person reading the + code know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU. 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. + just that. The rcu_dereference() primitive therefore also + prevents destructive compiler optimizations. However, + with a bit of devious creativity, it is possible to + mishandle the return value from rcu_dereference(). + Please see rcu_dereference.txt in this directory for + more information. The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such @@ -202,8 +206,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! 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() or call_srcu(), - the the corresponding readers must use srcu_read_lock() and + If the updater uses synchronize_srcu() or call_srcu(), then + 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 @@ -256,10 +260,10 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! variations on this theme. b. Limiting update rate. For example, if updates occur only - once per hour, then no explicit rate limiting is required, - unless your system is already badly broken. The dcache - subsystem takes this approach -- updates are guarded - by a global lock, limiting their rate. + once per hour, then no explicit rate limiting is + required, unless your system is already badly broken. + Older versions of the dcache subsystem take this approach, + guarding updates with a global lock, limiting their rate. c. Trusted update -- if updates can only be done manually by superuser or some other trusted user, then it might not @@ -268,7 +272,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! the machine. d. Use call_rcu_bh() rather than call_rcu(), in order to take - advantage of call_rcu_bh()'s faster grace periods. + advantage of call_rcu_bh()'s faster grace periods. (This + is only a partial solution, though.) e. Periodically invoke synchronize_rcu(), permitting a limited number of updates per grace period. @@ -276,6 +281,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! The same cautions apply to call_rcu_bh(), call_rcu_sched(), call_srcu(), and kfree_rcu(). + Note that although these primitives do take action to avoid memory + exhaustion when any given CPU has too many callbacks, a determined + user could still exhaust memory. This is especially the case + if a system with a large number of CPUs has been configured to + offload all of its RCU callbacks onto a single CPU, or if the + system has relatively little free memory. + 9. All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(), must be either within an RCU read-side diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..ceb05da5a5a --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ +PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF RETURN VALUES FROM rcu_dereference() + +Most of the time, you can use values from rcu_dereference() or one of +the similar primitives without worries. Dereferencing (prefix "*"), +field selection ("->"), assignment ("="), address-of ("&"), addition and +subtraction of constants, and casts all work quite naturally and safely. + +It is nevertheless possible to get into trouble with other operations. +Follow these rules to keep your RCU code working properly: + +o You must use one of the rcu_dereference() family of primitives + to load an RCU-protected pointer, otherwise CONFIG_PROVE_RCU + will complain. Worse yet, your code can see random memory-corruption + bugs due to games that compilers and DEC Alpha can play. + Without one of the rcu_dereference() primitives, compilers + can reload the value, and won't your code have fun with two + different values for a single pointer! Without rcu_dereference(), + DEC Alpha can load a pointer, dereference that pointer, and + return data preceding initialization that preceded the store of + the pointer. + + In addition, the volatile cast in rcu_dereference() prevents the + compiler from deducing the resulting pointer value. Please see + the section entitled "EXAMPLE WHERE THE COMPILER KNOWS TOO MUCH" + for an example where the compiler can in fact deduce the exact + value of the pointer, and thus cause misordering. + +o Do not use single-element RCU-protected arrays. The compiler + is within its right to assume that the value of an index into + such an array must necessarily evaluate to zero. The compiler + could then substitute the constant zero for the computation, so + that the array index no longer depended on the value returned + by rcu_dereference(). If the array index no longer depends + on rcu_dereference(), then both the compiler and the CPU + are within their rights to order the array access before the + rcu_dereference(), which can cause the array access to return + garbage. + +o Avoid cancellation when using the "+" and "-" infix arithmetic + operators. For example, for a given variable "x", avoid + "(x-x)". There are similar arithmetic pitfalls from other + arithmetic operatiors, such as "(x*0)", "(x/(x+1))" or "(x%1)". + The compiler is within its rights to substitute zero for all of + these expressions, so that subsequent accesses no longer depend + on the rcu_dereference(), again possibly resulting in bugs due + to misordering. + + Of course, if "p" is a pointer from rcu_dereference(), and "a" + and "b" are integers that happen to be equal, the expression + "p+a-b" is safe because its value still necessarily depends on + the rcu_dereference(), thus maintaining proper ordering. + +o Avoid all-zero operands to the bitwise "&" operator, and + similarly avoid all-ones operands to the bitwise "|" operator. + If the compiler is able to deduce the value of such operands, + it is within its rights to substitute the corresponding constant + for the bitwise operation. Once again, this causes subsequent + accesses to no longer depend on the rcu_dereference(), causing + bugs due to misordering. + + Please note that single-bit operands to bitwise "&" can also + be dangerous. At this point, the compiler knows that the + resulting value can only take on one of two possible values. + Therefore, a very small amount of additional information will + allow the compiler to deduce the exact value, which again can + result in misordering. + +o If you are using RCU to protect JITed functions, so that the + "()" function-invocation operator is applied to a value obtained + (directly or indirectly) from rcu_dereference(), you may need to + interact directly with the hardware to flush instruction caches. + This issue arises on some systems when a newly JITed function is + using the same memory that was used by an earlier JITed function. + +o Do not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "||" when + dereferencing. For example, the following (rather improbable) + code is buggy: + + int a[2]; + int index; + int force_zero_index = 1; + + ... + + r1 = rcu_dereference(i1) + r2 = a[r1 && force_zero_index]; /* BUGGY!!! */ + + The reason this is buggy is that "&&" and "||" are often compiled + using branches. While weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC + do order stores after such branches, they can speculate loads, + which can result in misordering bugs. + +o Do not use the results from relational operators ("==", "!=", + ">", ">=", "<", or "<=") when dereferencing. For example, + the following (quite strange) code is buggy: + + int a[2]; + int index; + int flip_index = 0; + + ... + + r1 = rcu_dereference(i1) + r2 = a[r1 != flip_index]; /* BUGGY!!! */ + + As before, the reason this is buggy is that relational operators + are often compiled using branches. And as before, although + weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC do order stores + after such branches, but can speculate loads, which can again + result in misordering bugs. + +o Be very careful about comparing pointers obtained from + rcu_dereference() against non-NULL values. As Linus Torvalds + explained, if the two pointers are equal, the compiler could + substitute the pointer you are comparing against for the pointer + obtained from rcu_dereference(). For example: + + p = rcu_dereference(gp); + if (p == &default_struct) + do_default(p->a); + + Because the compiler now knows that the value of "p" is exactly + the address of the variable "default_struct", it is free to + transform this code into the following: + + p = rcu_dereference(gp); + if (p == &default_struct) + do_default(default_struct.a); + + On ARM and Power hardware, the load from "default_struct.a" + can now be speculated, such that it might happen before the + rcu_dereference(). This could result in bugs due to misordering. + + However, comparisons are OK in the following cases: + + o The comparison was against the NULL pointer. If the + compiler knows that the pointer is NULL, you had better + not be dereferencing it anyway. If the comparison is + non-equal, the compiler is none the wiser. Therefore, + it is safe to compare pointers from rcu_dereference() + against NULL pointers. + + o The pointer is never dereferenced after being compared. + Since there are no subsequent dereferences, the compiler + cannot use anything it learned from the comparison + to reorder the non-existent subsequent dereferences. + This sort of comparison occurs frequently when scanning + RCU-protected circular linked lists. + + o The comparison is against a pointer that references memory + that was initialized "a long time ago." The reason + this is safe is that even if misordering occurs, the + misordering will not affect the accesses that follow + the comparison. So exactly how long ago is "a long + time ago"? Here are some possibilities: + + o Compile time. + + o Boot time. + + o Module-init time for module code. + + o Prior to kthread creation for kthread code. + + o During some prior acquisition of the lock that + we now hold. + + o Before mod_timer() time for a timer handler. + + There are many other possibilities involving the Linux + kernel's wide array of primitives that cause code to + be invoked at a later time. + + o The pointer being compared against also came from + rcu_dereference(). In this case, both pointers depend + on one rcu_dereference() or another, so you get proper + ordering either way. + + That said, this situation can make certain RCU usage + bugs more likely to happen. Which can be a good thing, + at least if they happen during testing. An example + of such an RCU usage bug is shown in the section titled + "EXAMPLE OF AMPLIFIED RCU-USAGE BUG". + + o All of the accesses following the comparison are stores, + so that a control dependency preserves the needed ordering. + That said, it is easy to get control dependencies wrong. + Please see the "CONTROL DEPENDENCIES" section of + Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for more details. + + o The pointers are not equal -and- the compiler does + not have enough information to deduce the value of the + pointer. Note that the volatile cast in rcu_dereference() + will normally prevent the compiler from knowing too much. + +o Disable any value-speculation optimizations that your compiler + might provide, especially if you are making use of feedback-based + optimizations that take data collected from prior runs. Such + value-speculation optimizations reorder operations by design. + + There is one exception to this rule: Value-speculation + optimizations that leverage the branch-prediction hardware are + safe on strongly ordered systems (such as x86), but not on weakly + ordered systems (such as ARM or Power). Choose your compiler + command-line options wisely! + + +EXAMPLE OF AMPLIFIED RCU-USAGE BUG + +Because updaters can run concurrently with RCU readers, RCU readers can +see stale and/or inconsistent values. If RCU readers need fresh or +consistent values, which they sometimes do, they need to take proper +precautions. To see this, consider the following code fragment: + + struct foo { + int a; + int b; + int c; + }; + struct foo *gp1; + struct foo *gp2; + + void updater(void) + { + struct foo *p; + + p = kmalloc(...); + if (p == NULL) + deal_with_it(); + p->a = 42; /* Each field in its own cache line. */ + p->b = 43; + p->c = 44; + rcu_assign_pointer(gp1, p); + p->b = 143; + p->c = 144; + rcu_assign_pointer(gp2, p); + } + + void reader(void) + { + struct foo *p; + struct foo *q; + int r1, r2; + + p = rcu_dereference(gp2); + if (p == NULL) + return; + r1 = p->b; /* Guaranteed to get 143. */ + q = rcu_dereference(gp1); /* Guaranteed non-NULL. */ + if (p == q) { + /* The compiler decides that q->c is same as p->c. */ + r2 = p->c; /* Could get 44 on weakly order system. */ + } + do_something_with(r1, r2); + } + +You might be surprised that the outcome (r1 == 143 && r2 == 44) is possible, +but you should not be. After all, the updater might have been invoked +a second time between the time reader() loaded into "r1" and the time +that it loaded into "r2". The fact that this same result can occur due +to some reordering from the compiler and CPUs is beside the point. + +But suppose that the reader needs a consistent view? + +Then one approach is to use locking, for example, as follows: + + struct foo { + int a; + int b; + int c; + spinlock_t lock; + }; + struct foo *gp1; + struct foo *gp2; + + void updater(void) + { + struct foo *p; + + p = kmalloc(...); + if (p == NULL) + deal_with_it(); + spin_lock(&p->lock); + p->a = 42; /* Each field in its own cache line. */ + p->b = 43; + p->c = 44; + spin_unlock(&p->lock); + rcu_assign_pointer(gp1, p); + spin_lock(&p->lock); + p->b = 143; + p->c = 144; + spin_unlock(&p->lock); + rcu_assign_pointer(gp2, p); + } + + void reader(void) + { + struct foo *p; + struct foo *q; + int r1, r2; + + p = rcu_dereference(gp2); + if (p == NULL) + return; + spin_lock(&p->lock); + r1 = p->b; /* Guaranteed to get 143. */ + q = rcu_dereference(gp1); /* Guaranteed non-NULL. */ + if (p == q) { + /* The compiler decides that q->c is same as p->c. */ + r2 = p->c; /* Locking guarantees r2 == 144. */ + } + spin_unlock(&p->lock); + do_something_with(r1, r2); + } + +As always, use the right tool for the job! + + +EXAMPLE WHERE THE COMPILER KNOWS TOO MUCH + +If a pointer obtained from rcu_dereference() compares not-equal to some +other pointer, the compiler normally has no clue what the value of the +first pointer might be. This lack of knowledge prevents the compiler +from carrying out optimizations that otherwise might destroy the ordering +guarantees that RCU depends on. And the volatile cast in rcu_dereference() +should prevent the compiler from guessing the value. + +But without rcu_dereference(), the compiler knows more than you might +expect. Consider the following code fragment: + + struct foo { + int a; + int b; + }; + static struct foo variable1; + static struct foo variable2; + static struct foo *gp = &variable1; + + void updater(void) + { + initialize_foo(&variable2); + rcu_assign_pointer(gp, &variable2); + /* + * The above is the only store to gp in this translation unit, + * and the address of gp is not exported in any way. + */ + } + + int reader(void) + { + struct foo *p; + + p = gp; + barrier(); + if (p == &variable1) + return p->a; /* Must be variable1.a. */ + else + return p->b; /* Must be variable2.b. */ + } + +Because the compiler can see all stores to "gp", it knows that the only +possible values of "gp" are "variable1" on the one hand and "variable2" +on the other. The comparison in reader() therefore tells the compiler +the exact value of "p" even in the not-equals case. This allows the +compiler to make the return values independent of the load from "gp", +in turn destroying the ordering between this load and the loads of the +return values. This can result in "p->b" returning pre-initialization +garbage values. + +In short, rcu_dereference() is -not- optional when you are going to +dereference the resulting pointer. diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt index 8e9359de1d2..68fe3ad2701 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt @@ -12,19 +12,19 @@ CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT This kernel configuration parameter defines the period of time that RCU will wait from the beginning of a grace period until it issues an RCU CPU stall warning. This time period is normally - sixty seconds. + 21 seconds. This configuration parameter may be changed at runtime via the /sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_cpu_stall_timeout, however this parameter is checked only at the beginning of a cycle. - So if you are 30 seconds into a 70-second stall, setting this + So if you are 10 seconds into a 40-second stall, setting this sysfs parameter to (say) five will shorten the timeout for the -next- stall, or the following warning for the current stall (assuming the stall lasts long enough). It will not affect the timing of the next warning for the current stall. Stall-warning messages may be enabled and disabled completely via - /sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_cpu_stall_suppress. + /sys/module/rcupdate/parameters/rcu_cpu_stall_suppress. CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE also dump the stacks of any tasks that are blocking the current RCU-preempt grace period. -RCU_CPU_STALL_INFO +CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_INFO This kernel configuration parameter causes the stall warning to print out additional per-CPU diagnostic information, including @@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ RCU_STALL_DELAY_DELTA Although the lockdep facility is extremely useful, it does add some overhead. Therefore, under CONFIG_PROVE_RCU, the RCU_STALL_DELAY_DELTA macro allows five extra seconds before - giving an RCU CPU stall warning message. + giving an RCU CPU stall warning message. (This is a cpp + macro, not a kernel configuration parameter.) RCU_STALL_RAT_DELAY @@ -52,7 +53,8 @@ RCU_STALL_RAT_DELAY However, if the offending CPU does not detect its own stall in the number of jiffies specified by RCU_STALL_RAT_DELAY, then some other CPU will complain. This delay is normally set to - two jiffies. + two jiffies. (This is a cpp macro, not a kernel configuration + parameter.) When a CPU detects that it is stalling, it will print a message similar to the following: @@ -86,7 +88,12 @@ printing, there will be a spurious stall-warning message: INFO: rcu_bh_state detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: { } (detected by 4, 2502 jiffies) -This is rare, but does happen from time to time in real life. +This is rare, but does happen from time to time in real life. It is also +possible for a zero-jiffy stall to be flagged in this case, depending +on how the stall warning and the grace-period initialization happen to +interact. Please note that it is not possible to entirely eliminate this +sort of false positive without resorting to things like stop_machine(), +which is overkill for this sort of problem. If the CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_INFO kernel configuration parameter is set, more information is printed with the stall-warning message, for example: @@ -216,4 +223,5 @@ that portion of the stack which remains the same from trace to trace. If you can reliably trigger the stall, ftrace can be quite helpful. RCU bugs can often be debugged with the help of CONFIG_RCU_TRACE -and with RCU's event tracing. +and with RCU's event tracing. For information on RCU's event tracing, +see include/trace/events/rcu.h. diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt b/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt index f3778f8952d..910870b15ac 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt @@ -396,14 +396,14 @@ o Each element of the form "3/3 ..>. 0:7 ^0" represents one rcu_node The output of "cat rcu/rcu_sched/rcu_pending" looks as follows: - 0!np=26111 qsp=29 rpq=5386 cbr=1 cng=570 gpc=3674 gps=577 nn=15903 - 1!np=28913 qsp=35 rpq=6097 cbr=1 cng=448 gpc=3700 gps=554 nn=18113 - 2!np=32740 qsp=37 rpq=6202 cbr=0 cng=476 gpc=4627 gps=546 nn=20889 - 3 np=23679 qsp=22 rpq=5044 cbr=1 cng=415 gpc=3403 gps=347 nn=14469 - 4!np=30714 qsp=4 rpq=5574 cbr=0 cng=528 gpc=3931 gps=639 nn=20042 - 5 np=28910 qsp=2 rpq=5246 cbr=0 cng=428 gpc=4105 gps=709 nn=18422 - 6!np=38648 qsp=5 rpq=7076 cbr=0 cng=840 gpc=4072 gps=961 nn=25699 - 7 np=37275 qsp=2 rpq=6873 cbr=0 cng=868 gpc=3416 gps=971 nn=25147 + 0!np=26111 qsp=29 rpq=5386 cbr=1 cng=570 gpc=3674 gps=577 nn=15903 ndw=0 + 1!np=28913 qsp=35 rpq=6097 cbr=1 cng=448 gpc=3700 gps=554 nn=18113 ndw=0 + 2!np=32740 qsp=37 rpq=6202 cbr=0 cng=476 gpc=4627 gps=546 nn=20889 ndw=0 + 3 np=23679 qsp=22 rpq=5044 cbr=1 cng=415 gpc=3403 gps=347 nn=14469 ndw=0 + 4!np=30714 qsp=4 rpq=5574 cbr=0 cng=528 gpc=3931 gps=639 nn=20042 ndw=0 + 5 np=28910 qsp=2 rpq=5246 cbr=0 cng=428 gpc=4105 gps=709 nn=18422 ndw=0 + 6!np=38648 qsp=5 rpq=7076 cbr=0 cng=840 gpc=4072 gps=961 nn=25699 ndw=0 + 7 np=37275 qsp=2 rpq=6873 cbr=0 cng=868 gpc=3416 gps=971 nn=25147 ndw=0 The fields are as follows: @@ -432,6 +432,10 @@ o "gpc" is the number of times that an old grace period had o "gps" is the number of times that a new grace period had started, but this CPU was not yet aware of it. +o "ndw" is the number of times that a wakeup of an rcuo + callback-offload kthread had to be deferred in order to avoid + deadlock. + o "nn" is the number of times that this CPU needed nothing. @@ -443,7 +447,7 @@ The output of "cat rcu/rcuboost" looks as follows: balk: nt=0 egt=6541 bt=0 nb=0 ny=126 nos=0 This information is output only for rcu_preempt. Each two-line entry -corresponds to a leaf rcu_node strcuture. The fields are as follows: +corresponds to a leaf rcu_node structure. The fields are as follows: o "n:m" is the CPU-number range for the corresponding two-line entry. In the sample output above, the first entry covers diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt index 0f0fb7c432c..49b8551a3b6 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt @@ -326,11 +326,11 @@ used as follows: a. synchronize_rcu() rcu_read_lock() / rcu_read_unlock() call_rcu() rcu_dereference() -b. call_rcu_bh() rcu_read_lock_bh() / rcu_read_unlock_bh() - rcu_dereference_bh() +b. synchronize_rcu_bh() rcu_read_lock_bh() / rcu_read_unlock_bh() + call_rcu_bh() rcu_dereference_bh() c. synchronize_sched() rcu_read_lock_sched() / rcu_read_unlock_sched() - preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() + call_rcu_sched() preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() local_irq_save() / local_irq_restore() hardirq enter / hardirq exit NMI enter / NMI exit @@ -794,10 +794,22 @@ in docbook. Here is the list, by category. RCU list traversal: + list_entry_rcu + list_first_entry_rcu + list_next_rcu list_for_each_entry_rcu + list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu + hlist_first_rcu + hlist_next_rcu + hlist_pprev_rcu hlist_for_each_entry_rcu + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu_bh + hlist_for_each_entry_continue_rcu + hlist_for_each_entry_continue_rcu_bh + hlist_nulls_first_rcu hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu - list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu + hlist_bl_first_rcu + hlist_bl_for_each_entry_rcu RCU pointer/list update: @@ -806,28 +818,38 @@ RCU pointer/list update: list_add_tail_rcu list_del_rcu list_replace_rcu - hlist_del_rcu hlist_add_after_rcu hlist_add_before_rcu hlist_add_head_rcu + hlist_del_rcu + hlist_del_init_rcu hlist_replace_rcu list_splice_init_rcu() + hlist_nulls_del_init_rcu + hlist_nulls_del_rcu + hlist_nulls_add_head_rcu + hlist_bl_add_head_rcu + hlist_bl_del_init_rcu + hlist_bl_del_rcu + hlist_bl_set_first_rcu RCU: Critical sections Grace period Barrier rcu_read_lock synchronize_net rcu_barrier rcu_read_unlock synchronize_rcu rcu_dereference synchronize_rcu_expedited - call_rcu - kfree_rcu - + rcu_read_lock_held call_rcu + rcu_dereference_check kfree_rcu + rcu_dereference_protected bh: Critical sections Grace period Barrier rcu_read_lock_bh call_rcu_bh rcu_barrier_bh rcu_read_unlock_bh synchronize_rcu_bh rcu_dereference_bh synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited - + rcu_dereference_bh_check + rcu_dereference_bh_protected + rcu_read_lock_bh_held sched: Critical sections Grace period Barrier @@ -835,7 +857,12 @@ sched: Critical sections Grace period Barrier rcu_read_unlock_sched call_rcu_sched [preempt_disable] synchronize_sched_expedited [and friends] + rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace + rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace rcu_dereference_sched + rcu_dereference_sched_check + rcu_dereference_sched_protected + rcu_read_lock_sched_held SRCU: Critical sections Grace period Barrier @@ -843,6 +870,8 @@ SRCU: Critical sections Grace period Barrier srcu_read_lock synchronize_srcu srcu_barrier srcu_read_unlock call_srcu srcu_dereference synchronize_srcu_expedited + srcu_dereference_check + srcu_read_lock_held SRCU: Initialization/cleanup init_srcu_struct @@ -850,9 +879,13 @@ SRCU: Initialization/cleanup All: lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access - rcu_dereference_check - rcu_dereference_protected + rcu_access_index rcu_access_pointer + rcu_dereference_index_check + rcu_dereference_raw + rcu_lockdep_assert + rcu_sleep_check + RCU_NONIDLE See the comment headers in the source code (or the docbook generated from them) for more information. |