[lttng-dev] Question about lock in synchronize_rcu implementation of URCU

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:44:01PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Paul and Yuxin,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:23:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Try building without it and see what happens when you run the tests.
> > 
> 
> I've run a 'regtest' with the following modification out of curiousity:
> 
> diff --git a/urcu.c b/urcu.c
> index a5568bdbd075..9dc3c9feae56 100644
> --- a/urcu.c
> +++ b/urcu.c
> @@ -398,8 +398,6 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void)
>  	/* We won't need to wake ourself up */
>  	urcu_wait_set_state(&wait, URCU_WAIT_RUNNING);
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&rcu_gp_lock);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Move all waiters into our local queue.
>  	 */
> @@ -480,7 +478,6 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void)
>  	smp_mb_master();
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rcu_registry_lock);
> -	mutex_unlock(&rcu_gp_lock);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Wakeup waiters only after we have completed the grace period
> 
> 
> And guess what, the result of the test was:
> 
> Test Summary Report
> -------------------
> ./run-urcu-tests.sh 1 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 979 Failed: 18)
>   Failed tests:  30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 103, 105, 120, 135
>                   150, 165, 180, 195, 210, 225, 240, 253
> 		  255
> Files=2, Tests=996, 1039 wallclock secs ( 0.55 usr  0.04 sys + 8981.02 cusr 597.64 csys = 9579.25 CPU)
> Result: FAIL
> 
> And test case 30 for example is something like:
> 
> tests/benchmark/test_urcu_mb <nreaders> <nwriters> 1 -d 0 -b 32768
> 
> and it failed because:
> 
> lt-test_urcu_mb: test_urcu.c:183: thr_reader: Assertion `*local_ptr == 8' failed.
> zsh: abort (core dumped)  ~/userspace-rcu/tests/benchmark/test_urcu_mb 4 4 1 -d 0 -b 32768
> 
> So I think what was going on here was:
> 
> CPU 0 (reader)			CPU 1 (writer)					CPU 2 (writer)
> ===================		====================				======================
> rcu_read_lock();								new = malloc(sizeof(int));
> local_ptr = rcu_dereference(test_rcu_pointer); // local_ptr == old		*new = 8;
> 										old = rcu_xchg_pointer(&test_rcu_pointer, new);
> 				synchronize_rcu():
> 				  urcu_wait_add(); // return 0
> 				  urcu_move_waiters(); // @gp_waiters is empty,
> 				  		       // the next urcu_wait_add() will return 0
> 
> 				  						synchronize_rcu():
> 									  	  urcu_wait_add(); // return 0
> 
> 				  mutex_lock(&rcu_register_lock);
> 				  wait_for_readers(); // remove registered reader from @registery,
> 				  		      // release rcu_register_lock and wait via poll()
> 
> 										  mutex_lock(&rcu_registry_lock);
> 										  wait_for_readers(); // @regsitery is empty! we are so lucky
> 										  return;
> 
> 										if (old)
> 											free(old)
> rcu_read_unlock();
> assert(*local_ptr==8); // but local_ptr(i.e. old) is already freed.
> 
> 
> So the point is there could be two writers calling synchronize_rcu() but
> not returning early(both of them enter the slow path to perform a grace
> period), so the rcu_gp_lock is necessary in this case.
> 
> (Cc  Mathieu)
> 
> But this is only my understanding and I'm learning the URCU code too ;-)

Nothing quite like actually trying it and seeing what happens!  One of
the best learning methods that I know of.

Assuming the act of actually trying it is non-fatal, of course.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> 
> > Might well be that it is unnecessary, but I will defer to Mathieu
> > on that point.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:18:04PM -0400, Yuxin Ren wrote:
> > > As they don't currently perform grace period, why do we use the rcu_gp_lock?
> > > 
> > > Thank you.
> > > Yuxin
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:34:16PM -0400, Yuxin Ren wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> I am learning the URCU code.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why do we need rcu_gp_lock in synchronize_rcu?
> > > >> https://github.com/urcu/userspace-rcu/blob/master/urcu.c#L401
> > > >>
> > > >> In the comment, it says this lock ensures mutual exclusion between
> > > >> threads calling synchronize_rcu().
> > > >> But only the first thread added to waiter queue can proceed to detect
> > > >> grace period.
> > > >> How can multiple threads currently perform the grace thread?
> > > >
> > > > They don't concurrently perform grace periods, and it would be wasteful
> > > > for them to do so.  Instead, the first one performs the grace period,
> > > > and all that were waiting at the time it started get the benefit of that
> > > > same grace period.
> > > >
> > > > Any that arrived after the first grace period performs the first
> > > > grace period are served by whichever of them performs the second
> > > > grace period.
> > > >
> > > >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > lttng-dev mailing list
> > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev