Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | .. _rcu_barrier: |
| 2 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 3 | RCU and Unloadable Modules |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 4 | ========================== |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 5 | |
| 6 | [Originally published in LWN Jan. 14, 2007: http://lwn.net/Articles/217484/] |
| 7 | |
| 8 | RCU (read-copy update) is a synchronization mechanism that can be thought |
| 9 | of as a replacement for read-writer locking (among other things), but with |
| 10 | very low-overhead readers that are immune to deadlock, priority inversion, |
| 11 | and unbounded latency. RCU read-side critical sections are delimited |
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 81ad58b | 2020-12-15 15:16:49 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 12 | by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), which, in non-CONFIG_PREEMPTION |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 13 | kernels, generate no code whatsoever. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | This means that RCU writers are unaware of the presence of concurrent |
| 16 | readers, so that RCU updates to shared data must be undertaken quite |
| 17 | carefully, leaving an old version of the data structure in place until all |
| 18 | pre-existing readers have finished. These old versions are needed because |
| 19 | such readers might hold a reference to them. RCU updates can therefore be |
| 20 | rather expensive, and RCU is thus best suited for read-mostly situations. |
| 21 | |
| 22 | How can an RCU writer possibly determine when all readers are finished, |
| 23 | given that readers might well leave absolutely no trace of their |
| 24 | presence? There is a synchronize_rcu() primitive that blocks until all |
| 25 | pre-existing readers have completed. An updater wishing to delete an |
| 26 | element p from a linked list might do the following, while holding an |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 27 | appropriate lock, of course:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 28 | |
| 29 | list_del_rcu(p); |
| 30 | synchronize_rcu(); |
| 31 | kfree(p); |
| 32 | |
| 33 | But the above code cannot be used in IRQ context -- the call_rcu() |
| 34 | primitive must be used instead. This primitive takes a pointer to an |
| 35 | rcu_head struct placed within the RCU-protected data structure and |
| 36 | another pointer to a function that may be invoked later to free that |
| 37 | structure. Code to delete an element p from the linked list from IRQ |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 38 | context might then be as follows:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 39 | |
| 40 | list_del_rcu(p); |
| 41 | call_rcu(&p->rcu, p_callback); |
| 42 | |
| 43 | Since call_rcu() never blocks, this code can safely be used from within |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 44 | IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 45 | |
| 46 | static void p_callback(struct rcu_head *rp) |
| 47 | { |
| 48 | struct pstruct *p = container_of(rp, struct pstruct, rcu); |
| 49 | |
| 50 | kfree(p); |
| 51 | } |
| 52 | |
| 53 | |
| 54 | Unloading Modules That Use call_rcu() |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 55 | ------------------------------------- |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 56 | |
| 57 | But what if p_callback is defined in an unloadable module? |
| 58 | |
| 59 | If we unload the module while some RCU callbacks are pending, |
| 60 | the CPUs executing these callbacks are going to be severely |
| 61 | disappointed when they are later invoked, as fancifully depicted at |
| 62 | http://lwn.net/images/ns/kernel/rcu-drop.jpg. |
| 63 | |
| 64 | We could try placing a synchronize_rcu() in the module-exit code path, |
| 65 | but this is not sufficient. Although synchronize_rcu() does wait for a |
| 66 | grace period to elapse, it does not wait for the callbacks to complete. |
| 67 | |
| 68 | One might be tempted to try several back-to-back synchronize_rcu() |
| 69 | calls, but this is still not guaranteed to work. If there is a very |
| 70 | heavy RCU-callback load, then some of the callbacks might be deferred |
| 71 | in order to allow other processing to proceed. Such deferral is required |
| 72 | in realtime kernels in order to avoid excessive scheduling latencies. |
| 73 | |
| 74 | |
| 75 | rcu_barrier() |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 76 | ------------- |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 77 | |
Paul E. McKenney | d84297c | 2013-04-18 14:25:03 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 78 | We instead need the rcu_barrier() primitive. Rather than waiting for |
| 79 | a grace period to elapse, rcu_barrier() waits for all outstanding RCU |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 80 | callbacks to complete. Please note that rcu_barrier() does **not** imply |
Paul E. McKenney | d84297c | 2013-04-18 14:25:03 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 81 | synchronize_rcu(), in particular, if there are no RCU callbacks queued |
| 82 | anywhere, rcu_barrier() is within its rights to return immediately, |
| 83 | without waiting for a grace period to elapse. |
| 84 | |
| 85 | Pseudo-code using rcu_barrier() is as follows: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 86 | |
| 87 | 1. Prevent any new RCU callbacks from being posted. |
| 88 | 2. Execute rcu_barrier(). |
| 89 | 3. Allow the module to be unloaded. |
| 90 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 4fea6ef | 2019-01-09 14:48:09 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 91 | There is also an srcu_barrier() function for SRCU, and you of course |
| 92 | must match the flavor of rcu_barrier() with that of call_rcu(). If your |
| 93 | module uses multiple flavors of call_rcu(), then it must also use multiple |
Paul E. McKenney | 3f944ad | 2013-03-04 17:55:49 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 94 | flavors of rcu_barrier() when unloading that module. For example, if |
Paul E. McKenney | 4fea6ef | 2019-01-09 14:48:09 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 95 | it uses call_rcu(), call_srcu() on srcu_struct_1, and call_srcu() on |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 96 | srcu_struct_2, then the following three lines of code will be required |
| 97 | when unloading:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 3f944ad | 2013-03-04 17:55:49 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 98 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 4fea6ef | 2019-01-09 14:48:09 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 99 | 1 rcu_barrier(); |
Paul E. McKenney | 3f944ad | 2013-03-04 17:55:49 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 100 | 2 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_1); |
| 101 | 3 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_2); |
| 102 | |
| 103 | The rcutorture module makes use of rcu_barrier() in its exit function |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 104 | as follows:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 105 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 106 | 1 static void |
| 107 | 2 rcu_torture_cleanup(void) |
| 108 | 3 { |
| 109 | 4 int i; |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 110 | 5 |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 111 | 6 fullstop = 1; |
| 112 | 7 if (shuffler_task != NULL) { |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 113 | 8 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_shuffle task"); |
| 114 | 9 kthread_stop(shuffler_task); |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 115 | 10 } |
| 116 | 11 shuffler_task = NULL; |
| 117 | 12 |
| 118 | 13 if (writer_task != NULL) { |
| 119 | 14 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_writer task"); |
| 120 | 15 kthread_stop(writer_task); |
| 121 | 16 } |
| 122 | 17 writer_task = NULL; |
| 123 | 18 |
| 124 | 19 if (reader_tasks != NULL) { |
| 125 | 20 for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) { |
| 126 | 21 if (reader_tasks[i] != NULL) { |
| 127 | 22 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( |
| 128 | 23 "Stopping rcu_torture_reader task"); |
| 129 | 24 kthread_stop(reader_tasks[i]); |
| 130 | 25 } |
| 131 | 26 reader_tasks[i] = NULL; |
| 132 | 27 } |
| 133 | 28 kfree(reader_tasks); |
| 134 | 29 reader_tasks = NULL; |
| 135 | 30 } |
| 136 | 31 rcu_torture_current = NULL; |
| 137 | 32 |
| 138 | 33 if (fakewriter_tasks != NULL) { |
| 139 | 34 for (i = 0; i < nfakewriters; i++) { |
| 140 | 35 if (fakewriter_tasks[i] != NULL) { |
| 141 | 36 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( |
| 142 | 37 "Stopping rcu_torture_fakewriter task"); |
| 143 | 38 kthread_stop(fakewriter_tasks[i]); |
| 144 | 39 } |
| 145 | 40 fakewriter_tasks[i] = NULL; |
| 146 | 41 } |
| 147 | 42 kfree(fakewriter_tasks); |
| 148 | 43 fakewriter_tasks = NULL; |
| 149 | 44 } |
| 150 | 45 |
| 151 | 46 if (stats_task != NULL) { |
| 152 | 47 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_stats task"); |
| 153 | 48 kthread_stop(stats_task); |
| 154 | 49 } |
| 155 | 50 stats_task = NULL; |
| 156 | 51 |
| 157 | 52 /* Wait for all RCU callbacks to fire. */ |
| 158 | 53 rcu_barrier(); |
| 159 | 54 |
| 160 | 55 rcu_torture_stats_print(); /* -After- the stats thread is stopped! */ |
| 161 | 56 |
| 162 | 57 if (cur_ops->cleanup != NULL) |
| 163 | 58 cur_ops->cleanup(); |
| 164 | 59 if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_torture_error)) |
| 165 | 60 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: FAILURE"); |
| 166 | 61 else |
| 167 | 62 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: SUCCESS"); |
| 168 | 63 } |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 169 | |
| 170 | Line 6 sets a global variable that prevents any RCU callbacks from |
| 171 | re-posting themselves. This will not be necessary in most cases, since |
| 172 | RCU callbacks rarely include calls to call_rcu(). However, the rcutorture |
| 173 | module is an exception to this rule, and therefore needs to set this |
| 174 | global variable. |
| 175 | |
| 176 | Lines 7-50 stop all the kernel tasks associated with the rcutorture |
| 177 | module. Therefore, once execution reaches line 53, no more rcutorture |
| 178 | RCU callbacks will be posted. The rcu_barrier() call on line 53 waits |
| 179 | for any pre-existing callbacks to complete. |
| 180 | |
| 181 | Then lines 55-62 print status and do operation-specific cleanup, and |
| 182 | then return, permitting the module-unload operation to be completed. |
| 183 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 184 | .. _rcubarrier_quiz_1: |
| 185 | |
| 186 | Quick Quiz #1: |
| 187 | Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 188 | be required? |
| 189 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 190 | :ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #1 <answer_rcubarrier_quiz_1>` |
| 191 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 192 | Your module might have additional complications. For example, if your |
| 193 | module invokes call_rcu() from timers, you will need to first cancel all |
| 194 | the timers, and only then invoke rcu_barrier() to wait for any remaining |
| 195 | RCU callbacks to complete. |
| 196 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 4fea6ef | 2019-01-09 14:48:09 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 197 | Of course, if you module uses call_rcu(), you will need to invoke |
| 198 | rcu_barrier() before unloading. Similarly, if your module uses |
| 199 | call_srcu(), you will need to invoke srcu_barrier() before unloading, |
| 200 | and on the same srcu_struct structure. If your module uses call_rcu() |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 201 | **and** call_srcu(), then you will need to invoke rcu_barrier() **and** |
Paul E. McKenney | 4fea6ef | 2019-01-09 14:48:09 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 202 | srcu_barrier(). |
Paul E. McKenney | 240ebbf | 2009-06-25 09:08:18 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 203 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 204 | |
| 205 | Implementing rcu_barrier() |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 206 | -------------------------- |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 207 | |
| 208 | Dipankar Sarma's implementation of rcu_barrier() makes use of the fact |
| 209 | that RCU callbacks are never reordered once queued on one of the per-CPU |
| 210 | queues. His implementation queues an RCU callback on each of the per-CPU |
| 211 | callback queues, and then waits until they have all started executing, at |
| 212 | which point, all earlier RCU callbacks are guaranteed to have completed. |
| 213 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 214 | The original code for rcu_barrier() was as follows:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 215 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 216 | 1 void rcu_barrier(void) |
| 217 | 2 { |
| 218 | 3 BUG_ON(in_interrupt()); |
| 219 | 4 /* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */ |
| 220 | 5 mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); |
| 221 | 6 init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); |
| 222 | 7 atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 0); |
| 223 | 8 on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, NULL, 0, 1); |
| 224 | 9 wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); |
| 225 | 10 mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); |
| 226 | 11 } |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 227 | |
| 228 | Line 3 verifies that the caller is in process context, and lines 5 and 10 |
| 229 | use rcu_barrier_mutex to ensure that only one rcu_barrier() is using the |
| 230 | global completion and counters at a time, which are initialized on lines |
| 231 | 6 and 7. Line 8 causes each CPU to invoke rcu_barrier_func(), which is |
| 232 | shown below. Note that the final "1" in on_each_cpu()'s argument list |
| 233 | ensures that all the calls to rcu_barrier_func() will have completed |
| 234 | before on_each_cpu() returns. Line 9 then waits for the completion. |
| 235 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 4fea6ef | 2019-01-09 14:48:09 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 236 | This code was rewritten in 2008 and several times thereafter, but this |
| 237 | still gives the general idea. |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 238 | |
| 239 | The rcu_barrier_func() runs on each CPU, where it invokes call_rcu() |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 240 | to post an RCU callback, as follows:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 241 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 242 | 1 static void rcu_barrier_func(void *notused) |
| 243 | 2 { |
| 244 | 3 int cpu = smp_processor_id(); |
| 245 | 4 struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu); |
| 246 | 5 struct rcu_head *head; |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 247 | 6 |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 248 | 7 head = &rdp->barrier; |
| 249 | 8 atomic_inc(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count); |
| 250 | 9 call_rcu(head, rcu_barrier_callback); |
| 251 | 10 } |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 252 | |
| 253 | Lines 3 and 4 locate RCU's internal per-CPU rcu_data structure, |
| 254 | which contains the struct rcu_head that needed for the later call to |
| 255 | call_rcu(). Line 7 picks up a pointer to this struct rcu_head, and line |
| 256 | 8 increments a global counter. This counter will later be decremented |
| 257 | by the callback. Line 9 then registers the rcu_barrier_callback() on |
| 258 | the current CPU's queue. |
| 259 | |
| 260 | The rcu_barrier_callback() function simply atomically decrements the |
| 261 | rcu_barrier_cpu_count variable and finalizes the completion when it |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 262 | reaches zero, as follows:: |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 263 | |
| 264 | 1 static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *notused) |
| 265 | 2 { |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 266 | 3 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count)) |
| 267 | 4 complete(&rcu_barrier_completion); |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 268 | 5 } |
| 269 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 270 | .. _rcubarrier_quiz_2: |
| 271 | |
| 272 | Quick Quiz #2: |
| 273 | What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 274 | immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the |
| 275 | value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations |
| 276 | are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in |
| 277 | rcu_barrier() returning prematurely? |
| 278 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 279 | :ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #2 <answer_rcubarrier_quiz_2>` |
| 280 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 4de5f89 | 2017-06-06 15:04:03 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 281 | The current rcu_barrier() implementation is more complex, due to the need |
| 282 | to avoid disturbing idle CPUs (especially on battery-powered systems) |
| 283 | and the need to minimally disturb non-idle CPUs in real-time systems. |
| 284 | However, the code above illustrates the concepts. |
| 285 | |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 286 | |
| 287 | rcu_barrier() Summary |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 288 | --------------------- |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 289 | |
| 290 | The rcu_barrier() primitive has seen relatively little use, since most |
| 291 | code using RCU is in the core kernel rather than in modules. However, if |
| 292 | you are using RCU from an unloadable module, you need to use rcu_barrier() |
| 293 | so that your module may be safely unloaded. |
| 294 | |
| 295 | |
| 296 | Answers to Quick Quizzes |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 297 | ------------------------ |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 298 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 299 | .. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_1: |
| 300 | |
| 301 | Quick Quiz #1: |
| 302 | Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 303 | be required? |
| 304 | |
| 305 | Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally |
| 306 | implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using |
| 307 | RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at |
| 308 | filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier() |
| 309 | in response, so that Nikita could invoke it during the |
| 310 | filesystem-unmount process. |
| 311 | |
| 312 | Much later, yours truly hit the RCU module-unload problem when |
| 313 | implementing rcutorture, and found that rcu_barrier() solves |
| 314 | this problem as well. |
| 315 | |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 316 | :ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #1 <rcubarrier_quiz_1>` |
| 317 | |
| 318 | .. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_2: |
| 319 | |
| 320 | Quick Quiz #2: |
| 321 | What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 322 | immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the |
| 323 | value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations |
| 324 | are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in |
| 325 | rcu_barrier() returning prematurely? |
| 326 | |
| 327 | Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last |
| 328 | argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through |
| 329 | to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(), |
| 330 | causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of |
| 331 | rcu_barrier_func() has completed. This by itself would prevent |
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 81ad58b | 2020-12-15 15:16:49 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 332 | a grace period from completing on non-CONFIG_PREEMPTION kernels, |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 333 | since each CPU must undergo a context switch (or other quiescent |
| 334 | state) before the grace period can complete. However, this is |
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 81ad58b | 2020-12-15 15:16:49 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 335 | of no use in CONFIG_PREEMPTION kernels. |
Paul E. McKenney | 1c12757 | 2008-11-13 18:11:52 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 336 | |
| 337 | Therefore, on_each_cpu() disables preemption across its call |
| 338 | to smp_call_function() and also across the local call to |
| 339 | rcu_barrier_func(). This prevents the local CPU from context |
| 340 | switching, again preventing grace periods from completing. This |
| 341 | means that all CPUs have executed rcu_barrier_func() before |
| 342 | the first rcu_barrier_callback() can possibly execute, in turn |
| 343 | preventing rcu_barrier_cpu_count from prematurely reaching zero. |
| 344 | |
| 345 | Currently, -rt implementations of RCU keep but a single global |
| 346 | queue for RCU callbacks, and thus do not suffer from this |
| 347 | problem. However, when the -rt RCU eventually does have per-CPU |
| 348 | callback queues, things will have to change. One simple change |
| 349 | is to add an rcu_read_lock() before line 8 of rcu_barrier() |
| 350 | and an rcu_read_unlock() after line 8 of this same function. If |
| 351 | you can think of a better change, please let me know! |
Amol Grover | 4af4983 | 2019-11-07 12:02:41 +0530 | [diff] [blame] | 352 | |
| 353 | :ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #2 <rcubarrier_quiz_2>` |