leandrof/linux
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Minki/linux
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

[PATCH] Yet another RCU documentation update

Browse Source 
Update RCU documentation based on discussions and review of RCU-based tree
patches.  Add an introductory whatisRCU.txt file.

Signed-off-by: <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This commit is contained in:
Paul E. McKenney 2005-09-10 00:26:24 -07:00 committed by Linus Torvalds
parent 12c62c2e9a
commit dd81eca83c
5 changed files with 1061 additions and 21 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

36
Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
View File

@ -2,7 +2,8 @@ Read the F-ing Papers!
This document describes RCU-related publications, and is followed by
the corresponding bibtex entries.
the corresponding bibtex entries. A number of the publications may
be found at http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/.
The first thing resembling RCU was published in 1980, when Kung and Lehman
[Kung80] recommended use of a garbage collector to defer destruction
@ -113,6 +114,10 @@ describing how to make RCU safe for soft-realtime applications [Sarma04c],
and a paper describing SELinux performance with RCU [JamesMorris04b].
2005 has seen further adaptation of RCU to realtime use, permitting
preemption of RCU realtime critical sections [PaulMcKenney05a,
PaulMcKenney05b].
Bibtex Entries
@article{Kung80
@ -410,3 +415,32 @@ Oregon Health and Sciences University"
\url{http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_morris/2153.html}
[Viewed December 10, 2004]"
}
@unpublished{PaulMcKenney05a
,Author="Paul E. McKenney"
,Title="{[RFC]} {RCU} and {CONFIG\_PREEMPT\_RT} progress"
,month="May"
,year="2005"
,note="Available:
\url{http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/9/185}
[Viewed May 13, 2005]"
,annotation="
First publication of working lock-based deferred free patches
for the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT environment.
"
}
@conference{PaulMcKenney05b
,Author="Paul E. McKenney and Dipankar Sarma"
,Title="Towards Hard Realtime Response from the Linux Kernel on SMP Hardware"
,Booktitle="linux.conf.au 2005"
,month="April"
,year="2005"
,address="Canberra, Australia"
,note="Available:
\url{http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/realtimeRCU.2005.04.23a.pdf}
[Viewed May 13, 2005]"
,annotation="
Realtime turns into making RCU yet more realtime friendly.
"
}

73
Documentation/RCU/UP.txt
View File

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ is that since there is only one CPU, it should not be necessary to
wait for anything else to get done, since there are no other CPUs for
anything else to be happening on. Although this approach will -sort- -of-
work a surprising amount of the time, it is a very bad idea in general.
This document presents two examples that demonstrate exactly how bad an
This document presents three examples that demonstrate exactly how bad an
idea this is.
@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ from softirq, the list scan would find itself referencing a newly freed
element B. This situation can greatly decrease the life expectancy of
your kernel.
This same problem can occur if call_rcu() is invoked from a hardware
interrupt handler.
Example 2: Function-Call Fatality
@ -44,8 +47,37 @@ its arguments would cause it to fail to make the fundamental guarantee
underlying RCU, namely that call_rcu() defers invoking its arguments until
all RCU read-side critical sections currently executing have completed.
Quick Quiz: why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in
this case?
Quick Quiz #1: why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in
this case?
Example 3: Death by Deadlock
Suppose that call_rcu() is invoked while holding a lock, and that the
callback function must acquire this same lock. In this case, if
call_rcu() were to directly invoke the callback, the result would
be self-deadlock.
In some cases, it would possible to restructure to code so that
the call_rcu() is delayed until after the lock is released. However,
there are cases where this can be quite ugly:
1. If a number of items need to be passed to call_rcu() within
the same critical section, then the code would need to create
a list of them, then traverse the list once the lock was
released.
2. In some cases, the lock will be held across some kernel API,
so that delaying the call_rcu() until the lock is released
requires that the data item be passed up via a common API.
It is far better to guarantee that callbacks are invoked
with no locks held than to have to modify such APIs to allow
arbitrary data items to be passed back up through them.
If call_rcu() directly invokes the callback, painful locking restrictions
or API changes would be required.
Quick Quiz #2: What locking restriction must RCU callbacks respect?
Summary
@ -53,12 +85,35 @@ Summary
Permitting call_rcu() to immediately invoke its arguments or permitting
synchronize_rcu() to immediately return breaks RCU, even on a UP system.
So do not do it! Even on a UP system, the RCU infrastructure -must-
respect grace periods.
respect grace periods, and -must- invoke callbacks from a known environment
in which no locks are held.
Answer to Quick Quiz
Answer to Quick Quiz #1:
Why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in this case?
The calling function is scanning an RCU-protected linked list, and
is therefore within an RCU read-side critical section. Therefore,
the called function has been invoked within an RCU read-side critical
section, and is not permitted to block.
Because the calling function is scanning an RCU-protected linked
list, and is therefore within an RCU read-side critical section.
Therefore, the called function has been invoked within an RCU
read-side critical section, and is not permitted to block.
Answer to Quick Quiz #2:
What locking restriction must RCU callbacks respect?
Any lock that is acquired within an RCU callback must be
acquired elsewhere using an _irq variant of the spinlock
primitive. For example, if "mylock" is acquired by an
RCU callback, then a process-context acquisition of this
lock must use something like spin_lock_irqsave() to
acquire the lock.
If the process-context code were to simply use spin_lock(),
then, since RCU callbacks can be invoked from softirq context,
the callback might be called from a softirq that interrupted
the process-context critical section. This would result in
self-deadlock.
This restriction might seem gratuitous, since very few RCU
callbacks acquire locks directly. However, a great many RCU
callbacks do acquire locks -indirectly-, for example, via
the kfree() primitive.

23
Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
View File

@ -43,6 +43,10 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
rcu_read_lock_bh()) in the read-side critical sections,
and are also an excellent aid to readability.
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.
3. Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?
The whole point of RCU is to permit readers to run without
@ -90,7 +94,11 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various
"_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such as the
list_for_each_entry_rcu().
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.
b. If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu()
and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order
@ -150,16 +158,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
Use of the _rcu() list-traversal primitives outside of an
RCU read-side critical section causes no harm other than
a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs and some
confusion on the part of people trying to read the code.
Another way of thinking of this is "If you are holding the
lock that prevents the data structure from changing, why do
you also need RCU-based protection?" That said, there may
well be situations where use of the _rcu() list-traversal
primitives while the update-side lock is held results in
simpler and more maintainable code. The jury is still out
on this question.
a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs. It can
also be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common
code is shared between readers and updaters.
10. Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
you -must- use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.

48
Documentation/RCU/rcu.txt
View File

@ -64,6 +64,54 @@ o I hear that RCU is patented? What is with that?
Of these, one was allowed to lapse by the assignee, and the
others have been contributed to the Linux kernel under GPL.
o I hear that RCU needs work in order to support realtime kernels?
Yes, work in progress.
o Where can I find more information on RCU?
See the RTFP.txt file in this directory.
Or point your browser at http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/.
o What are all these files in this directory?
NMI-RCU.txt
Describes how to use RCU to implement dynamic
NMI handlers, which can be revectored on the fly,
without rebooting.
RTFP.txt
List of RCU-related publications and web sites.
UP.txt
Discussion of RCU usage in UP kernels.
arrayRCU.txt
Describes how to use RCU to protect arrays, with
resizeable arrays whose elements reference other
data structures being of the most interest.
checklist.txt
Lists things to check for when inspecting code that
uses RCU.
listRCU.txt
Describes how to use RCU to protect linked lists.
This is the simplest and most common use of RCU
in the Linux kernel.
rcu.txt
You are reading it!
whatisRCU.txt
Overview of how the RCU implementation works. Along
the way, presents a conceptual view of RCU.

902
Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,902 @@
What is RCU?
RCU is a synchronization mechanism that was added to the Linux kernel
during the 2.5 development effort that is optimized for read-mostly
situations. Although RCU is actually quite simple once you understand it,
getting there can sometimes be a challenge. Part of the problem is that
most of the past descriptions of RCU have been written with the mistaken
assumption that there is "one true way" to describe RCU. Instead,
the experience has been that different people must take different paths
to arrive at an understanding of RCU. This document provides several
different paths, as follows:
1. RCU OVERVIEW
2. WHAT IS RCU'S CORE API?
3. WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLE USES OF CORE RCU API?
4. WHAT IF MY UPDATING THREAD CANNOT BLOCK?
5. WHAT ARE SOME SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RCU?
6. ANALOGY WITH READER-WRITER LOCKING
7. FULL LIST OF RCU APIs
8. ANSWERS TO QUICK QUIZZES
People who prefer starting with a conceptual overview should focus on
Section 1, though most readers will profit by reading this section at
some point. People who prefer to start with an API that they can then
experiment with should focus on Section 2. People who prefer to start
with example uses should focus on Sections 3 and 4. People who need to
understand the RCU implementation should focus on Section 5, then dive
into the kernel source code. People who reason best by analogy should
focus on Section 6. Section 7 serves as an index to the docbook API
documentation, and Section 8 is the traditional answer key.
So, start with the section that makes the most sense to you and your
preferred method of learning. If you need to know everything about
everything, feel free to read the whole thing -- but if you are really
that type of person, you have perused the source code and will therefore
never need this document anyway. ;-)
1. RCU OVERVIEW
The basic idea behind RCU is to split updates into "removal" and
"reclamation" phases. The removal phase removes references to data items
within a data structure (possibly by replacing them with references to
new versions of these data items), and can run concurrently with readers.
The reason that it is safe to run the removal phase concurrently with
readers is the semantics of modern CPUs guarantee that readers will see
either the old or the new version of the data structure rather than a
partially updated reference. The reclamation phase does the work of reclaiming
(e.g., freeing) the data items removed from the data structure during the
removal phase. Because reclaiming data items can disrupt any readers
concurrently referencing those data items, the reclamation phase must
not start until readers no longer hold references to those data items.
Splitting the update into removal and reclamation phases permits the
updater to perform the removal phase immediately, and to defer the
reclamation phase until all readers active during the removal phase have
completed, either by blocking until they finish or by registering a
callback that is invoked after they finish. Only readers that are active
during the removal phase need be considered, because any reader starting
after the removal phase will be unable to gain a reference to the removed
data items, and therefore cannot be disrupted by the reclamation phase.
So the typical RCU update sequence goes something like the following:
a. Remove pointers to a data structure, so that subsequent
readers cannot gain a reference to it.
b. Wait for all previous readers to complete their RCU read-side
critical sections.
c. At this point, there cannot be any readers who hold references
to the data structure, so it now may safely be reclaimed
(e.g., kfree()d).
Step (b) above is the key idea underlying RCU's deferred destruction.
The ability to wait until all readers are done allows RCU readers to
use much lighter-weight synchronization, in some cases, absolutely no
synchronization at all. In contrast, in more conventional lock-based
schemes, readers must use heavy-weight synchronization in order to
prevent an updater from deleting the data structure out from under them.
This is because lock-based updaters typically update data items in place,
and must therefore exclude readers. In contrast, RCU-based updaters
typically take advantage of the fact that writes to single aligned
pointers are atomic on modern CPUs, allowing atomic insertion, removal,
and replacement of data items in a linked structure without disrupting
readers. Concurrent RCU readers can then continue accessing the old
versions, and can dispense with the atomic operations, memory barriers,
and communications cache misses that are so expensive on present-day
SMP computer systems, even in absence of lock contention.
In the three-step procedure shown above, the updater is performing both
the removal and the reclamation step, but it is often helpful for an
entirely different thread to do the reclamation, as is in fact the case
in the Linux kernel's directory-entry cache (dcache). Even if the same
thread performs both the update step (step (a) above) and the reclamation
step (step (c) above), it is often helpful to think of them separately.
For example, RCU readers and updaters need not communicate at all,
but RCU provides implicit low-overhead communication between readers
and reclaimers, namely, in step (b) above.
So how the heck can a reclaimer tell when a reader is done, given
that readers are not doing any sort of synchronization operations???
Read on to learn about how RCU's API makes this easy.
2. WHAT IS RCU'S CORE API?
The core RCU API is quite small:
a. rcu_read_lock()
b. rcu_read_unlock()
c. synchronize_rcu() / call_rcu()
d. rcu_assign_pointer()
e. rcu_dereference()
There are many other members of the RCU API, but the rest can be
expressed in terms of these five, though most implementations instead
express synchronize_rcu() in terms of the call_rcu() callback API.
The five core RCU APIs are described below, the other 18 will be enumerated
later. See the kernel docbook documentation for more info, or look directly
at the function header comments.
rcu_read_lock()
void rcu_read_lock(void);
Used by a reader to inform the reclaimer that the reader is
entering an RCU read-side critical section. It is illegal
to block while in an RCU read-side critical section, though
kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU can preempt RCU read-side
critical sections. Any RCU-protected data structure accessed
during an RCU read-side critical section is guaranteed to remain
unreclaimed for the full duration of that critical section.
Reference counts may be used in conjunction with RCU to maintain
longer-term references to data structures.
rcu_read_unlock()
void rcu_read_unlock(void);
Used by a reader to inform the reclaimer that the reader is
exiting an RCU read-side critical section. Note that RCU
read-side critical sections may be nested and/or overlapping.
synchronize_rcu()
void synchronize_rcu(void);
Marks the end of updater code and the beginning of reclaimer
code. It does this by blocking until all pre-existing RCU
read-side critical sections on all CPUs have completed.
Note that synchronize_rcu() will -not- necessarily wait for
any subsequent RCU read-side critical sections to complete.
For example, consider the following sequence of events:
CPU 0 CPU 1 CPU 2
----------------- ------------------------- ---------------
1. rcu_read_lock()
2. enters synchronize_rcu()
3. rcu_read_lock()
4. rcu_read_unlock()
5. exits synchronize_rcu()
6. rcu_read_unlock()
To reiterate, synchronize_rcu() waits only for ongoing RCU
read-side critical sections to complete, not necessarily for
any that begin after synchronize_rcu() is invoked.
Of course, synchronize_rcu() does not necessarily return
-immediately- after the last pre-existing RCU read-side critical
section completes. For one thing, there might well be scheduling
delays. For another thing, many RCU implementations process
requests in batches in order to improve efficiencies, which can
further delay synchronize_rcu().
Since synchronize_rcu() is the API that must figure out when
readers are done, its implementation is key to RCU. For RCU
to be useful in all but the most read-intensive situations,
synchronize_rcu()'s overhead must also be quite small.
The call_rcu() API is a callback form of synchronize_rcu(),
and is described in more detail in a later section. Instead of
blocking, it registers a function and argument which are invoked
after all ongoing RCU read-side critical sections have completed.
This callback variant is particularly useful in situations where
it is illegal to block.
rcu_assign_pointer()
typeof(p) rcu_assign_pointer(p, typeof(p) v);
Yes, rcu_assign_pointer() -is- implemented as a macro, though it
would be cool to be able to declare a function in this manner.
(Compiler experts will no doubt disagree.)
The updater uses this function to assign a new value to an
RCU-protected pointer, in order to safely communicate the change
in value from the updater to the reader. This function returns
the new value, and also executes any memory-barrier instructions
required for a given CPU architecture.
Perhaps more important, it serves to document which pointers
are protected by RCU. That said, rcu_assign_pointer() is most
frequently used indirectly, via the _rcu list-manipulation
primitives such as list_add_rcu().
rcu_dereference()
typeof(p) rcu_dereference(p);
Like rcu_assign_pointer(), rcu_dereference() must be implemented
as a macro.
The reader uses rcu_dereference() to fetch an RCU-protected
pointer, which returns a value that may then be safely
dereferenced. Note that rcu_deference() does not actually
dereference the pointer, instead, it protects the pointer for
later dereferencing. It also executes any needed memory-barrier
instructions for a given CPU architecture. Currently, only Alpha
needs memory barriers within rcu_dereference() -- on other CPUs,
it compiles to nothing, not even a compiler directive.
Common coding practice uses rcu_dereference() to copy an
RCU-protected pointer to a local variable, then dereferences
this local variable, for example as follows:
p = rcu_dereference(head.next);
return p->data;
However, in this case, one could just as easily combine these
into one statement:
return rcu_dereference(head.next)->data;
If you are going to be fetching multiple fields from the
RCU-protected structure, using the local variable is of
course preferred. Repeated rcu_dereference() calls look
ugly and incur unnecessary overhead on Alpha CPUs.
Note that the value returned by rcu_dereference() is valid
only within the enclosing RCU read-side critical section.
For example, the following is -not- legal:
rcu_read_lock();
p = rcu_dereference(head.next);
rcu_read_unlock();
x = p->address;
rcu_read_lock();
y = p->data;
rcu_read_unlock();
Holding a reference from one RCU read-side critical section
to another is just as illegal as holding a reference from
one lock-based critical section to another! Similarly,
using a reference outside of the critical section in which
it was acquired is just as illegal as doing so with normal
locking.
As with rcu_assign_pointer(), an important function of
rcu_dereference() is to document which pointers are protected
by RCU. And, again like rcu_assign_pointer(), rcu_dereference()
is typically used indirectly, via the _rcu list-manipulation
primitives, such as list_for_each_entry_rcu().
The following diagram shows how each API communicates among the
reader, updater, and reclaimer.
rcu_assign_pointer()
+--------+
+---------------------->| reader |---------+
| +--------+ |
| | |
| | | Protect:
| | | rcu_read_lock()
| | | rcu_read_unlock()
| rcu_dereference() | |
+---------+ | |
| updater |<---------------------+ |
+---------+ V
| +-----------+
+----------------------------------->| reclaimer |
+-----------+
Defer:
synchronize_rcu() & call_rcu()
The RCU infrastructure observes the time sequence of rcu_read_lock(),
rcu_read_unlock(), synchronize_rcu(), and call_rcu() invocations in
order to determine when (1) synchronize_rcu() invocations may return
to their callers and (2) call_rcu() callbacks may be invoked. Efficient
implementations of the RCU infrastructure make heavy use of batching in
order to amortize their overhead over many uses of the corresponding APIs.
There are no fewer than three RCU mechanisms in the Linux kernel; the
diagram above shows the first one, which is by far the most commonly used.
The rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer() primitives are used for
all three mechanisms, but different defer and protect primitives are
used as follows:
Defer Protect
a. synchronize_rcu() rcu_read_lock() / rcu_read_unlock()
call_rcu()
b. call_rcu_bh() rcu_read_lock_bh() / rcu_read_unlock_bh()
c. synchronize_sched() preempt_disable() / preempt_enable()
local_irq_save() / local_irq_restore()
hardirq enter / hardirq exit
NMI enter / NMI exit
These three mechanisms are used as follows:
a. RCU applied to normal data structures.
b. RCU applied to networking data structures that may be subjected
to remote denial-of-service attacks.
c. RCU applied to scheduler and interrupt/NMI-handler tasks.
Again, most uses will be of (a). The (b) and (c) cases are important
for specialized uses, but are relatively uncommon.
3. WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLE USES OF CORE RCU API?
This section shows a simple use of the core RCU API to protect a
global pointer to a dynamically allocated structure. More typical
uses of RCU may be found in listRCU.txt, arrayRCU.txt, and NMI-RCU.txt.
struct foo {
int a;
char b;
long c;
};
DEFINE_SPINLOCK(foo_mutex);
struct foo *gbl_foo;
/*
* Create a new struct foo that is the same as the one currently
* pointed to by gbl_foo, except that field "a" is replaced
* with "new_a". Points gbl_foo to the new structure, and
* frees up the old structure after a grace period.
*
* Uses rcu_assign_pointer() to ensure that concurrent readers
* see the initialized version of the new structure.
*
* Uses synchronize_rcu() to ensure that any readers that might
* have references to the old structure complete before freeing
* the old structure.
*/
void foo_update_a(int new_a)
{
struct foo *new_fp;
struct foo *old_fp;
new_fp = kmalloc(sizeof(*fp), GFP_KERNEL);
spin_lock(&foo_mutex);
old_fp = gbl_foo;
*new_fp = *old_fp;
new_fp->a = new_a;
rcu_assign_pointer(gbl_foo, new_fp);
spin_unlock(&foo_mutex);
synchronize_rcu();
kfree(old_fp);
}
/*
* Return the value of field "a" of the current gbl_foo
* structure. Use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
* to ensure that the structure does not get deleted out
* from under us, and use rcu_dereference() to ensure that
* we see the initialized version of the structure (important
* for DEC Alpha and for people reading the code).
*/
int foo_get_a(void)
{
int retval;
rcu_read_lock();
retval = rcu_dereference(gbl_foo)->a;
rcu_read_unlock();
return retval;
}
So, to sum up:
o Use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() to guard RCU
read-side critical sections.
o Within an RCU read-side critical section, use rcu_dereference()
to dereference RCU-protected pointers.
o Use some solid scheme (such as locks or semaphores) to
keep concurrent updates from interfering with each other.
o Use rcu_assign_pointer() to update an RCU-protected pointer.
This primitive protects concurrent readers from the updater,
-not- concurrent updates from each other! You therefore still
need to use locking (or something similar) to keep concurrent
rcu_assign_pointer() primitives from interfering with each other.
o Use synchronize_rcu() -after- removing a data element from an
RCU-protected data structure, but -before- reclaiming/freeing
the data element, in order to wait for the completion of all
RCU read-side critical sections that might be referencing that
data item.
See checklist.txt for additional rules to follow when using RCU.
4. WHAT IF MY UPDATING THREAD CANNOT BLOCK?
In the example above, foo_update_a() blocks until a grace period elapses.
This is quite simple, but in some cases one cannot afford to wait so
long -- there might be other high-priority work to be done.
In such cases, one uses call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu().
The call_rcu() API is as follows:
void call_rcu(struct rcu_head * head,
void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
This function invokes func(head) after a grace period has elapsed.
This invocation might happen from either softirq or process context,
so the function is not permitted to block. The foo struct needs to
have an rcu_head structure added, perhaps as follows:
struct foo {
int a;
char b;
long c;
struct rcu_head rcu;
};
The foo_update_a() function might then be written as follows:
/*
* Create a new struct foo that is the same as the one currently
* pointed to by gbl_foo, except that field "a" is replaced
* with "new_a". Points gbl_foo to the new structure, and
* frees up the old structure after a grace period.
*
* Uses rcu_assign_pointer() to ensure that concurrent readers
* see the initialized version of the new structure.
*
* Uses call_rcu() to ensure that any readers that might have
* references to the old structure complete before freeing the
* old structure.
*/
void foo_update_a(int new_a)
{
struct foo *new_fp;
struct foo *old_fp;
new_fp = kmalloc(sizeof(*fp), GFP_KERNEL);
spin_lock(&foo_mutex);
old_fp = gbl_foo;
*new_fp = *old_fp;
new_fp->a = new_a;
rcu_assign_pointer(gbl_foo, new_fp);
spin_unlock(&foo_mutex);
call_rcu(&old_fp->rcu, foo_reclaim);
}
The foo_reclaim() function might appear as follows:
void foo_reclaim(struct rcu_head *rp)
{
struct foo *fp = container_of(rp, struct foo, rcu);
kfree(fp);
}
The container_of() primitive is a macro that, given a pointer into a
struct, the type of the struct, and the pointed-to field within the
struct, returns a pointer to the beginning of the struct.
The use of call_rcu() permits the caller of foo_update_a() to
immediately regain control, without needing to worry further about the
old version of the newly updated element. It also clearly shows the
RCU distinction between updater, namely foo_update_a(), and reclaimer,
namely foo_reclaim().
The summary of advice is the same as for the previous section, except
that we are now using call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu():
o Use call_rcu() -after- removing a data element from an
RCU-protected data structure in order to register a callback
function that will be invoked after the completion of all RCU
read-side critical sections that might be referencing that
data item.
Again, see checklist.txt for additional rules governing the use of RCU.
5. WHAT ARE SOME SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RCU?
One of the nice things about RCU is that it has extremely simple "toy"
implementations that are a good first step towards understanding the
production-quality implementations in the Linux kernel. This section
presents two such "toy" implementations of RCU, one that is implemented
in terms of familiar locking primitives, and another that more closely
resembles "classic" RCU. Both are way too simple for real-world use,
lacking both functionality and performance. However, they are useful
in getting a feel for how RCU works. See kernel/rcupdate.c for a
production-quality implementation, and see:
http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU
for papers describing the Linux kernel RCU implementation. The OLS'01
and OLS'02 papers are a good introduction, and the dissertation provides
more details on the current implementation.
5A. "TOY" IMPLEMENTATION #1: LOCKING
This section presents a "toy" RCU implementation that is based on
familiar locking primitives. Its overhead makes it a non-starter for
real-life use, as does its lack of scalability. It is also unsuitable
for realtime use, since it allows scheduling latency to "bleed" from
one read-side critical section to another.
However, it is probably the easiest implementation to relate to, so is
a good starting point.
It is extremely simple:
static DEFINE_RWLOCK(rcu_gp_mutex);
void rcu_read_lock(void)
{
read_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
}
void rcu_read_unlock(void)
{
read_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
}
void synchronize_rcu(void)
{
write_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
write_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
}
[You can ignore rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() without
missing much. But here they are anyway. And whatever you do, don't
forget about them when submitting patches making use of RCU!]
#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) ({ \
smp_wmb(); \
(p) = (v); \
})
#define rcu_dereference(p) ({ \
typeof(p) _________p1 = p; \
smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
(_________p1); \
})
The rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() primitive read-acquire
and release a global reader-writer lock. The synchronize_rcu()
primitive write-acquires this same lock, then immediately releases
it. This means that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side
critical sections that were in progress before synchonize_rcu() was
called are guaranteed to have completed -- there is no way that
synchronize_rcu() would have been able to write-acquire the lock
otherwise.
It is possible to nest rcu_read_lock(), since reader-writer locks may
be recursively acquired. Note also that rcu_read_lock() is immune
from deadlock (an important property of RCU). The reason for this is
that the only thing that can block rcu_read_lock() is a synchronize_rcu().
But synchronize_rcu() does not acquire any locks while holding rcu_gp_mutex,
so there can be no deadlock cycle.
Quick Quiz #1: Why is this argument naive? How could a deadlock
occur when using this algorithm in a real-world Linux
kernel? How could this deadlock be avoided?
5B. "TOY" EXAMPLE #2: CLASSIC RCU
This section presents a "toy" RCU implementation that is based on
"classic RCU". It is also short on performance (but only for updates) and
on features such as hotplug CPU and the ability to run in CONFIG_PREEMPT
kernels. The definitions of rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer()
are the same as those shown in the preceding section, so they are omitted.
void rcu_read_lock(void) { }
void rcu_read_unlock(void) { }
void synchronize_rcu(void)
{
int cpu;
for_each_cpu(cpu)
run_on(cpu);
}
Note that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() do absolutely nothing.
This is the great strength of classic RCU in a non-preemptive kernel:
read-side overhead is precisely zero, at least on non-Alpha CPUs.
And there is absolutely no way that rcu_read_lock() can possibly
participate in a deadlock cycle!
The implementation of synchronize_rcu() simply schedules itself on each
CPU in turn. The run_on() primitive can be implemented straightforwardly
in terms of the sched_setaffinity() primitive. Of course, a somewhat less
"toy" implementation would restore the affinity upon completion rather
than just leaving all tasks running on the last CPU, but when I said
"toy", I meant -toy-!
So how the heck is this supposed to work???
Remember that it is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical
section. Therefore, if a given CPU executes a context switch, we know
that it must have completed all preceding RCU read-side critical sections.
Once -all- CPUs have executed a context switch, then -all- preceding
RCU read-side critical sections will have completed.
So, suppose that we remove a data item from its structure and then invoke
synchronize_rcu(). Once synchronize_rcu() returns, we are guaranteed
that there are no RCU read-side critical sections holding a reference
to that data item, so we can safely reclaim it.
Quick Quiz #2: Give an example where Classic RCU's read-side
overhead is -negative-.
Quick Quiz #3: If it is illegal to block in an RCU read-side
critical section, what the heck do you do in
PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
6. ANALOGY WITH READER-WRITER LOCKING
Although RCU can be used in many different ways, a very common use of
RCU is analogous to reader-writer locking. The following unified
diff shows how closely related RCU and reader-writer locking can be.
@@ -13,15 +14,15 @@
struct list_head *lp;
struct el *p;
- read_lock();
- list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) {
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, head, lp) {
if (p->key == key) {
*result = p->data;
- read_unlock();
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return 1;
}
}
- read_unlock();
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return 0;
}
@@ -29,15 +30,16 @@
{
struct el *p;
- write_lock(&listmutex);
+ spin_lock(&listmutex);
list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) {
if (p->key == key) {
list_del(&p->list);
- write_unlock(&listmutex);
+ spin_unlock(&listmutex);
+ synchronize_rcu();
kfree(p);
return 1;
}
}
- write_unlock(&listmutex);
+ spin_unlock(&listmutex);
return 0;
}
Or, for those who prefer a side-by-side listing:
1 struct el { 1 struct el {
2 struct list_head list; 2 struct list_head list;
3 long key; 3 long key;
4 spinlock_t mutex; 4 spinlock_t mutex;
5 int data; 5 int data;
6 /* Other data fields */ 6 /* Other data fields */
7 }; 7 };
8 spinlock_t listmutex; 8 spinlock_t listmutex;
9 struct el head; 9 struct el head;
1 int search(long key, int *result) 1 int search(long key, int *result)
2 { 2 {
3 struct list_head *lp; 3 struct list_head *lp;
4 struct el *p; 4 struct el *p;
5 5
6 read_lock(); 6 rcu_read_lock();
7 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 7 list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, head, lp) {
8 if (p->key == key) { 8 if (p->key == key) {
9 *result = p->data; 9 *result = p->data;
10 read_unlock(); 10 rcu_read_unlock();
11 return 1; 11 return 1;
12 } 12 }
13 } 13 }
14 read_unlock(); 14 rcu_read_unlock();
15 return 0; 15 return 0;
16 } 16 }
1 int delete(long key) 1 int delete(long key)
2 { 2 {
3 struct el *p; 3 struct el *p;
4 4
5 write_lock(&listmutex); 5 spin_lock(&listmutex);
6 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 6 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) {
7 if (p->key == key) { 7 if (p->key == key) {
8 list_del(&p->list); 8 list_del(&p->list);
9 write_unlock(&listmutex); 9 spin_unlock(&listmutex);
10 synchronize_rcu();
10 kfree(p); 11 kfree(p);
11 return 1; 12 return 1;
12 } 13 }
13 } 14 }
14 write_unlock(&listmutex); 15 spin_unlock(&listmutex);
15 return 0; 16 return 0;
16 } 17 }
Either way, the differences are quite small. Read-side locking moves
to rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock, update-side locking moves from
from a reader-writer lock to a simple spinlock, and a synchronize_rcu()
precedes the kfree().
However, there is one potential catch: the read-side and update-side
critical sections can now run concurrently. In many cases, this will
not be a problem, but it is necessary to check carefully regardless.
For example, if multiple independent list updates must be seen as
a single atomic update, converting to RCU will require special care.
Also, the presence of synchronize_rcu() means that the RCU version of
delete() can now block. If this is a problem, there is a callback-based
mechanism that never blocks, namely call_rcu(), that can be used in
place of synchronize_rcu().
7. FULL LIST OF RCU APIs
The RCU APIs are documented in docbook-format header comments in the
Linux-kernel source code, but it helps to have a full list of the
APIs, since there does not appear to be a way to categorize them
in docbook. Here is the list, by category.
Markers for RCU read-side critical sections:
rcu_read_lock
rcu_read_unlock
rcu_read_lock_bh
rcu_read_unlock_bh
RCU pointer/list traversal:
rcu_dereference
list_for_each_rcu (to be deprecated in favor of
list_for_each_entry_rcu)
list_for_each_safe_rcu (deprecated, not used)
list_for_each_entry_rcu
list_for_each_continue_rcu (to be deprecated in favor of new
list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu)
hlist_for_each_rcu (to be deprecated in favor of
hlist_for_each_entry_rcu)
hlist_for_each_entry_rcu
RCU pointer update:
rcu_assign_pointer
list_add_rcu
list_add_tail_rcu
list_del_rcu
list_replace_rcu
hlist_del_rcu
hlist_add_head_rcu
RCU grace period:
synchronize_kernel (deprecated)
synchronize_net
synchronize_sched
synchronize_rcu
call_rcu
call_rcu_bh
See the comment headers in the source code (or the docbook generated
from them) for more information.
8. ANSWERS TO QUICK QUIZZES
Quick Quiz #1: Why is this argument naive? How could a deadlock
occur when using this algorithm in a real-world Linux
kernel? [Referring to the lock-based "toy" RCU
algorithm.]
Answer: Consider the following sequence of events:
1. CPU 0 acquires some unrelated lock, call it
"problematic_lock".
2. CPU 1 enters synchronize_rcu(), write-acquiring
rcu_gp_mutex.
3. CPU 0 enters rcu_read_lock(), but must wait
because CPU 1 holds rcu_gp_mutex.
4. CPU 1 is interrupted, and the irq handler
attempts to acquire problematic_lock.
The system is now deadlocked.
One way to avoid this deadlock is to use an approach like
that of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, where all normal spinlocks
become blocking locks, and all irq handlers execute in
the context of special tasks. In this case, in step 4
above, the irq handler would block, allowing CPU 1 to
release rcu_gp_mutex, avoiding the deadlock.
Even in the absence of deadlock, this RCU implementation
allows latency to "bleed" from readers to other
readers through synchronize_rcu(). To see this,
consider task A in an RCU read-side critical section
(thus read-holding rcu_gp_mutex), task B blocked
attempting to write-acquire rcu_gp_mutex, and
task C blocked in rcu_read_lock() attempting to
read_acquire rcu_gp_mutex. Task A's RCU read-side
latency is holding up task C, albeit indirectly via
task B.
Realtime RCU implementations therefore use a counter-based
approach where tasks in RCU read-side critical sections
cannot be blocked by tasks executing synchronize_rcu().
Quick Quiz #2: Give an example where Classic RCU's read-side
overhead is -negative-.
Answer: Imagine a single-CPU system with a non-CONFIG_PREEMPT
kernel where a routing table is used by process-context
code, but can be updated by irq-context code (for example,
by an "ICMP REDIRECT" packet). The usual way of handling
this would be to have the process-context code disable
interrupts while searching the routing table. Use of
RCU allows such interrupt-disabling to be dispensed with.
Thus, without RCU, you pay the cost of disabling interrupts,
and with RCU you don't.
One can argue that the overhead of RCU in this
case is negative with respect to the single-CPU
interrupt-disabling approach. Others might argue that
the overhead of RCU is merely zero, and that replacing
the positive overhead of the interrupt-disabling scheme
with the zero-overhead RCU scheme does not constitute
negative overhead.
In real life, of course, things are more complex. But
even the theoretical possibility of negative overhead for
a synchronization primitive is a bit unexpected. ;-)
Quick Quiz #3: If it is illegal to block in an RCU read-side
critical section, what the heck do you do in
PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
Answer: Just as PREEMPT_RT permits preemption of spinlock
critical sections, it permits preemption of RCU
read-side critical sections. It also permits
spinlocks blocking while in RCU read-side critical
sections.
Why the apparent inconsistency? Because it is it
possible to use priority boosting to keep the RCU
grace periods short if need be (for example, if running
short of memory). In contrast, if blocking waiting
for (say) network reception, there is no way to know
what should be boosted. Especially given that the
process we need to boost might well be a human being
who just went out for a pizza or something. And although
a computer-operated cattle prod might arouse serious
interest, it might also provoke serious objections.
Besides, how does the computer know what pizza parlor
the human being went to???
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My thanks to the people who helped make this human-readable, including
Jon Walpole, Josh Triplett, Serge Hallyn, and Suzanne Wood.
For more information, see http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU.