The rcu_start_future_gp() function checks the current rcu_node's ->gpnum
and ->completed twice, once without ACCESS_ONCE() and once with it.
Which is pointless because we hold that rcu_node's ->lock at that point.
The intent was to check the current rcu_node structure and the root
rcu_node structure, the latter locklessly with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
commit therefore makes that change.
The reason that it is safe to locklessly check the root rcu_nodes's
->gpnum and ->completed fields is that we hold the current rcu_node's
->lock, which constrains the root rcu_node's ability to change its
->gpnum and ->completed fields. Of course, if there is a single rcu_node
structure, then rnp_root==rnp, and holding the lock prevents all changes.
If there is more than one rcu_node structure, then the code updates the
fields in the following order:
1. Increment rnp_root->gpnum to start new grace period.
2. Increment rnp->gpnum to initialize the current rcu_node,
continuing initialization for the new grace period.
3. Increment rnp_root->completed to end the current grace period.
4. Increment rnp->completed to continue cleaning up after the
old grace period.
So there are four possible combinations of relative values of these
four fields:
N N N N: RCU idle, new grace period must be initiated.
Although rnp_root->gpnum might be incremented immediately
after we check, that will just result in unnecessary work.
The grace period already started, and we try to start it.
N+1 N N N: RCU grace period just started. No further change is
possible because we hold rnp->lock, so the checks of
rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed are stable.
We know that our request for a future grace period will
be seen during grace-period cleanup.
N+1 N N+1 N: RCU grace period is ongoing. Because rnp->gpnum is
different than rnp->completed, we won't even look at
rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed, so the possible
concurrent change to rnp_root->completed does not matter.
We know that our request for a future grace period will
be seen during grace-period cleanup, which cannot pass
this rcu_node because we hold its ->lock.
N+1 N+1 N+1 N: RCU grace period has ended, but not yet been cleaned up.
Because rnp->gpnum is different than rnp->completed, we
won't look at rnp_root->gpnum and rnp_root->completed, so
the possible concurrent change to rnp_root->completed does
not matter. We know that our request for a future grace
period will be seen during grace-period cleanup, which
cannot pass this rcu_node because we hold its ->lock.
Therefore, despite initial appearances, the lockless check is safe.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
[ paulmck: Update comment to say why the lockless check is safe. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
48bd8e9b82