On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 05:19:51PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 05:19:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 05:00:16PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 04:13:57PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > ---
> > > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 48
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > index 0ffd41ba304f..879c67a31116 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > @@ -1526,7 +1526,7 @@ static void trace_rcu_this_gp(struct rcu_node
> > > > > *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * rcu_start_this_gp - Request the start of a particular grace period
> > > > > - * @rnp: The leaf node of the CPU from which to start.
> > > > > + * @rnp_start: The leaf node of the CPU from which to start.
> > > > > * @rdp: The rcu_data corresponding to the CPU from which to start.
> > > > > * @gp_seq_req: The gp_seq of the grace period to start.
> > > > > *
> > > > > @@ -1540,12 +1540,12 @@ static void trace_rcu_this_gp(struct rcu_node
> > > > > *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
> > > > > *
> > > > > * Returns true if the GP thread needs to be awakened else false.
> > > > > */
> > > > > -static bool rcu_start_this_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data
> > > > > *rdp,
> > > > > +static bool rcu_start_this_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp_start, struct
> > > > > rcu_data *rdp,
> > > > > unsigned long gp_seq_req)
> > > > > {
> > > > > bool ret = false;
> > > > > struct rcu_state *rsp = rdp->rsp;
> > > > > - struct rcu_node *rnp_root;
> > > > > + struct rcu_node *rnp, *rnp_root = NULL;
> > > >
> > > > Unless I am going blind, this patch really isn't using rnp_root. It
> > > > could be removed.
> > >
> > > Its just limitation of the diff tools. Your eyes are just fine and doing
> > > great based on your review comments ;)
> > >
> > > The rnp_root is used after we break out of the loop.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * Use funnel locking to either acquire the root rcu_node
> > > > > @@ -1556,34 +1556,36 @@ static bool rcu_start_this_gp(struct rcu_node
> > > > > *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
> > > > > * scan the leaf rcu_node structures. Note that rnp->lock must
> > > > > * not be released.
> > > > > */
> > > > > - raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rnp);
> > > > > - trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp, rdp, gp_seq_req, TPS("Startleaf"));
> > > > > - for (rnp_root = rnp; 1; rnp_root = rnp_root->parent) {
> > > > > - if (rnp_root != rnp)
> > > > > - raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp_root);
> > > > > - if (ULONG_CMP_GE(rnp_root->gp_seq_needed, gp_seq_req) ||
> > > > > - rcu_seq_started(&rnp_root->gp_seq, gp_seq_req) ||
> > > > > - (rnp != rnp_root &&
> > > > > -
> > > > > rcu_seq_state(rcu_seq_current(&rnp_root->gp_seq)))) {
> > > > > - trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp_root, rdp, gp_seq_req,
> > > > > + raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rnp_start);
> > > > > + trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp_start, rdp, gp_seq_req, TPS("Startleaf"));
> > > > > + for (rnp = rnp_start; 1; rnp = rnp->parent) {
> > > > > + if (rnp != rnp_start)
> > > > > + raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp);
> > > > > + if (ULONG_CMP_GE(rnp->gp_seq_needed, gp_seq_req) ||
> > > > > + rcu_seq_started(&rnp->gp_seq, gp_seq_req) ||
> > > > > + (rnp != rnp_start &&
> > > > > + rcu_seq_state(rcu_seq_current(&rnp->gp_seq)))) {
> > > > > + trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp, rdp, gp_seq_req,
> > > > > TPS("Prestarted"));
> > > > > goto unlock_out;
> > > > > }
> > > > > - rnp_root->gp_seq_needed = gp_seq_req;
> > > > > - if (rcu_seq_state(rcu_seq_current(&rnp->gp_seq))) {
> > > > > + rnp->gp_seq_needed = gp_seq_req;
> > > > > + if (rcu_seq_state(rcu_seq_current(&rnp_start->gp_seq)))
> > > > > {
> > > >
> > > > The original had a performance bug, which is quite a bit more obvious
> > > > given the new names, so thank you for that! The above statement should
> > > > instead be as follows:
> > > >
> > > > if (rcu_seq_state(rcu_seq_current(&rnp->gp_seq))) {
> > > >
> > > > It does not make sense to keep checking the starting rcu_node because
> > > > changes to ->gp_seq happen first at the top of the tree. So we might
> > > > take an earlier exit by checking the current rnp instead of rechecking
> > > > rnp_start over and over.
> > > >
> > > > Please feel free to make this change, which is probably best as a
> > > > separate
> > > > patch. That way this rename patch can remain a straightforward rename
> > > > patch.
> > >
> > > Yes, sounds like a nice optimization and I'm glad my variable renaming
> > > helped
> > > ;) I feel I should have seen it too. I can make this change and send out
> > > with my next series as you suggest.
> > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * We just marked the leaf, and a grace period
> > > > > * is in progress, which means that
> > > > > rcu_gp_cleanup()
> > > > > * will see the marking. Bail to reduce
> > > > > contention.
> > > > > */
> > > > > - trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp, rdp, gp_seq_req,
> > > > > + trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp_start, rdp, gp_seq_req,
> > > > > TPS("Startedleaf"));
> > > > > goto unlock_out;
> > > > > }
> > > > > - if (rnp_root != rnp && rnp_root->parent != NULL)
> > > > > - raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp_root);
> > > > > - if (!rnp_root->parent)
> > > > > + if (rnp != rnp_start && rnp->parent != NULL)
> > > > > + raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp);
> > > > > + if (!rnp->parent) {
> > > > > + rnp_root = rnp;
> > > >
> > > > Since rnp_root is otherwise unused in the new version, the above
> > > > statement
> > > > can be dropped along with the "if" statement's braces and the
> > > > declaration.
> > >
> > > Actually rnp_root is needed for tracing calls after we breakout of the
> > > loop.
> >
> > But at that point, rnp_root is equal to rnp, so rnp_root still isn't
> > really needed, correct?
>
> You are right. Sorry about that, so I'll change the tracepoints that follow
> to use rnp, as you suggested.
Sounds good, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
