[ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)
Paul E. McKenney
paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Feb 12 15:17:58 EST 2009
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:38:26PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Replying to a separate portion of the mail with less CC :
>
>
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:08:24PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:35:49PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:42:58PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [ . . . ]
> > > >
> > > > > > And I had bugs in my model that allowed the rcu_read_lock() model
> > > > > > to nest indefinitely, which overflowed into the top bit, messing
> > > > > > things up. :-/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Attached is a fixed model. This model validates correctly (woo-hoo!).
> > > > > > Even better, gives the expected error if you comment out line 180 and
> > > > > > uncomment line 213, this latter corresponding to the error case I called
> > > > > > out a few days ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Great ! :) I added this version to the git repository, hopefully it's ok
> > > > > with you ?
> > > >
> > > > Works for me!
> > > >
> > > > > > I will play with removing models of mb...
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I see you already did..
> > > >
> > > > I continued this, and surprisingly few are actually required, though
> > > > I don't fully trust the modeling of removed memory barriers.
> > >
> > > On my side I cleaned up the code a lot, and actually added some barriers
> > > ;) Especially in the busy loops, where we expect the other thread's
> > > value to change eventually between iterations. A smp_rmb() seems more
> > > appropriate that barrier(). I also added a lot of comments about
> > > barriers in the code, and made the reader side much easier to review.
> > >
> > > Please feel free to comment on my added code comments.
> >
> > The torture test now looks much more familiar. ;-)
> >
> > I fixed some compiler warnings (in my original, sad to say), added an
> > ACCESS_ONCE() to rcu_read_lock() (also in my original),
>
> Yes, I thought about this ACCESS_ONCE during my sleep.. just did not
> have to to update the source yet. :)
>
> Merged. Thanks !
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/urcu.c
> > +++ b/urcu.c
> > @@ -99,7 +99,8 @@ static void force_mb_single_thread(pthread_t tid)
> > * BUSY-LOOP.
> > */
> > while (sig_done < 1)
> > - smp_rmb(); /* ensure we re-read sig-done */
> > + barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
> > + /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
>
> That could be a smp_rmc() ? (see other mail)
I prefer making ACCESS_ONCE() actually having the full semantics implied
by its name. ;-)
See patch at end of this email.
> > smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
> > }
> >
> > @@ -113,7 +114,8 @@ static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
> > if (!reader_data)
> > return;
> > sig_done = 0;
> > - smp_mb(); /* write sig_done before sending the signals */
> > + /* smp_mb(); write sig_done before sending the signals */
> > + /* redundant with barriers in pthread_kill(). */
>
> Absolutely not. pthread_kill does not send a signal to self in every
> case because the writer thread has not requirement to register itself.
> It *could* be registered as a reader too, but does not have to.
No, not the barrier in the signal handler, but rather the barriers in
the system call invoked by pthread_kill().
> > for (index = reader_data; index < reader_data + num_readers; index++)
> > pthread_kill(index->tid, SIGURCU);
> > /*
> > @@ -121,7 +123,8 @@ static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
> > * BUSY-LOOP.
> > */
> > while (sig_done < num_readers)
> > - smp_rmb(); /* ensure we re-read sig-done */
> > + barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
> > + /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
>
> That could be a smp_rmc() ?
Again, prefer:
while (ACCESS_ONCE() < num_readers)
after upgrading ACCESS_ONCE() to provide the full semantics.
I will send a patch.
> > smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
> > }
> > #endif
> > @@ -181,7 +184,8 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void)
> > * the writer waiting forever while new readers are always accessing
> > * data (no progress).
> > */
> > - smp_mb();
> > + /* smp_mb(); Don't need this one for CPU, only compiler. */
> > + barrier();
>
> smp_mc() ?
ACCESS_ONCE().
> >
> > switch_next_urcu_qparity(); /* 1 -> 0 */
> >
>
> Side-note :
> on archs without cache coherency, all smp_[rw ]mb would turn into a
> cache flush.
So I might need more in my ACCESS_ONCE() below.
Add .gitignore files, and redefine accesses in terms of a new
ACCESS_ONCE().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
.gitignore | 9 +++++++++
formal-model/.gitignore | 3 +++
urcu.c | 10 ++++------
urcu.h | 12 ++++++++++++
4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..29aa7e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+test_rwlock_timing
+test_urcu
+test_urcu_timing
+test_urcu_yield
+urcu-asm.o
+urcu.o
+urcutorture
+urcutorture-yield
+urcu-yield.o
diff --git a/formal-model/.gitignore b/formal-model/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..49fdd8a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/formal-model/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+pan
+pan.*
+urcu.spin.trail
diff --git a/urcu.c b/urcu.c
index a696439..f61d4c3 100644
--- a/urcu.c
+++ b/urcu.c
@@ -98,9 +98,8 @@ static void force_mb_single_thread(pthread_t tid)
* Wait for sighandler (and thus mb()) to execute on every thread.
* BUSY-LOOP.
*/
- while (sig_done < 1)
- barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
- /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
+ while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < 1)
+ continue;
smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
}
@@ -122,9 +121,8 @@ static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
* Wait for sighandler (and thus mb()) to execute on every thread.
* BUSY-LOOP.
*/
- while (sig_done < num_readers)
- barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
- /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
+ while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < num_readers)
+ continue;
smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
}
#endif
diff --git a/urcu.h b/urcu.h
index 79d9464..dd040a5 100644
--- a/urcu.h
+++ b/urcu.h
@@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long x, volatile void *ptr,
/* Nop everywhere except on alpha. */
#define smp_read_barrier_depends()
+#define CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT
+#define cpu_relax barrier
+
/*
* Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching accesses. The compiler
* is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of ACCESS_ONCE(),
@@ -110,7 +113,16 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long x, volatile void *ptr,
* use is to mediate communication between process-level code and irq/NMI
* handlers, all running on the same CPU.
*/
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT
#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
+#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT */
+#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) ({ \
+ typeof(x) _________x1; \
+ _________x1 = (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x)); \
+ cpu_relax(); \
+ (_________x1); \
+ })
+#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT */
/**
* rcu_dereference - fetch an RCU-protected pointer in an
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list