On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 08:18:51PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:44:45AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > >> > >> __srcu_read_lock() used to be called with preemption disabled. I guess > >> the reason was because we have two percpu variables to increase. So with > >> only one percpu right, could we remove the preempt_{dis,en}able() in > >> srcu_read_lock() and use this_cpu_inc() here? > > > > Quite possibly... > > >
Hello, Lai ;-)
> it will be nicer if it is removed.
>
> The reason for the preemption-disabled was also because we
> have to disallow any preemption between the fetching of the idx
> and the increasement. so that we have at most NR_CPUS worth
> of readers using the old index that haven't incremented the counters.
>
After reading the comment for a while, I actually got a question, maybe
I miss something ;-)
Why "at most NR_CPUS worth of readers using the old index haven't
incremented the counters" could save us from overflow the counter?
Please consider the following case in current implementation:
{sp->completed = 0} so idx = 1 in srcu_advance_batches(...)
one thread A is currently in __srcu_read_lock() and using idx = 1 and
about to increase the percpu c[idx], and ULONG_MAX __srcu_read_lock()s
have been called and returned with idx = 1, please note I think this is
possible because I assume we may have some code like this:
unsigned long i = 0;
for (; i < ULONG_MAX; i++)
srcu_read_lock(); // return the same idx 1;
And none of the corresponding srcu_read_unlock() has been called;
In this case, at the time thread A increases the percpu c[idx], that
will result in an overflow, right? So even one reader using old idx will
result in overflow.
I think we won't be hit by overflow is not because we have few readers
using old idx, it's because there are unlikely ULONG_MAX + 1
__srcu_read_lock() called for the same idx, right? And the reason of
this is much complex: because we won't have a fair mount of threads in
the system, because no thread will nest srcu many levels, because there
won't be a lot readers using old idx.
And this will still be true if we use new mechanism and shrink the
preemption disabled section, right?
Regards,
Boqun
> if we remove the preempt_{dis,en}able(). we must change the
> "NR_CPUS" in the comment into ULONG_MAX/4. (I assume
> one on-going reader needs at least need 4bytes at the stack). it is still
> safe.
>
> but we still need to think more if we want to remove the
> preempt_{dis,en}able().
>
> Thanks
> Lai
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
