[lttng-dev] [RFC] adding into middle of RCU list
Stephen Hemminger
stephen at networkplumber.org
Fri Aug 23 17:14:47 EDT 2013
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:05:51 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:09:56PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:16:53 -0400
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> >
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:33:18PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > I needed to add into the middle of an RCU list, does this make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From a45892b0d49ac5fe449ba7e19c646cb17f7cee57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:27:04 -0700
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] Add list_splice_init_rcu to allow insertion into a RCU list
> > > > >
> > > > > Simplified version of the version in kernel.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > urcu/rculist.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/urcu/rculist.h b/urcu/rculist.h
> > > > > index 1fd2df3..2e8a5a0 100644
> > > > > --- a/urcu/rculist.h
> > > > > +++ b/urcu/rculist.h
> > > > > @@ -72,6 +72,38 @@ void cds_list_del_rcu(struct cds_list_head *elem)
> > > > > CMM_STORE_SHARED(elem->prev->next, elem->next);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * Splice an RCU-protected list into an existing list.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Note that this function blocks in synchronize_rcu()
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Important note: this function is not called concurrently
> > > > > + * with other updates to the list.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static inline void caa_list_splice_init_rcu(struct cds_list_head *list,
> > > > > + struct cds_list_head *head)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct cds_list_head *first = list->next;
> > > > > + struct cds_list_head *last = list->prev;
> > > > > + struct cds_list_head *at = head->next;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (cds_list_empty(list))
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* "first" and "last" tracking list, so initialize it. */
> > > > > + CDS_INIT_LIST_HEAD(list);
> > > >
> > > > This change is happening in the presence of readers on the list, right?
> > > > For this to work reliably in the presence of mischievous compilers,
> > > > wouldn't CDS_INIT_LIST_HEAD() need to use CMM_ACCESS_ONCE() for its
> > > > pointer accesses?
> > >
> > > Actually, we have rcu_assign_pointer()/rcu_set_pointer() exactly for
> > > this. They even skip the memory barrier if they store a NULL pointer.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm... The kernel version seems to have the same issue...
> > >
> > > The compiler memory model of the Linux kernel AFAIK does not require an
> > > ACCESS_ONCE() for stores to word-aligned, word-sized integers/pointers,
> > > even if those are expected to be read concurrently. For reference, see:
> > >
> > > #define __rcu_assign_pointer(p, v, space) \
> > > do { \
> > > smp_wmb(); \
> > > (p) = (typeof(*v) __force space *)(v); \
> > > } while (0)
> > >
> > > In userspace RCU, we require to match CMM_LOAD_SHARED() with
> > > CMM_STORE_SHARED() (which are used by
> > > rcu_dereference()/rcu_{set,assign}_pointer) whenever we concurrently
> > > access a variable shared between threads.
> > >
> > > So I recommend using rcu_set_pointer() in userspace RCU, but I don't
> > > think your patch is needed for Linux, given the Linux kernel compiler
> > > memory model that is less strict than userspace RCU's model.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Mathieu
> > >
> > >
> > > > Patch below, FWIW.
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Wait for any readers to finish using the list before splicing */
> > > > > + synchronize_rcu();
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Readers are finished with the source list, so perform splice. */
> > > > > + last->next = at;
> > > > > + rcu_assign_pointer(head->next, first);
> > > > > + first->prev = head;
> > > > > + at->prev = last;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * Iteration through all elements of the list must be done while rcu_read_lock()
> > > > > * is held.
> > > > > --
> > > > > 1.7.10.4
> > > >
> > > > rcu: Make list_splice_init_rcu() account for RCU readers
> > > >
> > > > The list_splice_init_rcu() function allows a list visible to RCU readers
> > > > to be spliced into another list visible to RCU readers. This is OK,
> > > > except for the use of INIT_LIST_HEAD(), which does pointer updates
> > > > without doing anything to make those updates safe for concurrent readers.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, most of the time INIT_LIST_HEAD() is being used in reader-free
> > > > contexts, such as initialization or cleanup, so it is OK for it to update
> > > > pointers in an unsafe-for-RCU-readers manner. This commit therefore
> > > > creates an INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU() that uses ACCESS_ONCE() to make the updates
> > > > reader-safe. The reason that we can use ACCESS_ONCE() instead of the more
> > > > typical rcu_assign_pointer() is that list_splice_init_rcu() is updating the
> > > > pointers to reference something that is already visible to readers, so
> > > > that there is no problem with pre-initialized values.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
> > > > index 4106721..45a0a9e 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/rculist.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
> > > > @@ -19,6 +19,21 @@
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > + * INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU - Initialize a list_head visible to RCU readers
> > > > + * @list: list to be initialized
> > > > + *
> > > > + * You should instead use INIT_LIST_HEAD() for normal initialization and
> > > > + * cleanup tasks, when readers have no access to the list being initialized.
> > > > + * However, if the list being initialized is visible to readers, you
> > > > + * need to keep the compiler from being too mischievous.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(struct list_head *list)
> > > > +{
> > > > + ACCESS_ONCE(list->next) = list;
> > > > + ACCESS_ONCE(list->prev) = list;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > * return the ->next pointer of a list_head in an rcu safe
> > > > * way, we must not access it directly
> > > > */
> > > > @@ -191,9 +206,13 @@ static inline void list_splice_init_rcu(struct list_head *list,
> > > > if (list_empty(list))
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > - /* "first" and "last" tracking list, so initialize it. */
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * "first" and "last" tracking list, so initialize it. RCU readers
> > > > + * have access to this list, so we must use INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU()
> > > > + * instead of INIT_LIST_HEAD().
> > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > - INIT_LIST_HEAD(list);
> > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(list);
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * At this point, the list body still points to the source list.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > For what I need, it is probably simpler to do "insert in middle" rather
> > than a full splice, so I am checking how to do that.
>
> If you are inserting a new element not accessible to readers in the
> middle of the list, you should be able to use cds_list_add_rcu() treating
> the predecessor cds_list_head as the list header. Or am I missing
> something here?
Yeah, that is what I was thinking, as long as the ordering is correct.
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list