123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322 |
- RCU and Unloadable Modules
- [Originally published in LWN Jan. 14, 2007: http://lwn.net/Articles/217484/]
- RCU (read-copy update) is a synchronization mechanism that can be thought
- of as a replacement for read-writer locking (among other things), but with
- very low-overhead readers that are immune to deadlock, priority inversion,
- and unbounded latency. RCU read-side critical sections are delimited
- by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), which, in non-CONFIG_PREEMPT
- kernels, generate no code whatsoever.
- This means that RCU writers are unaware of the presence of concurrent
- readers, so that RCU updates to shared data must be undertaken quite
- carefully, leaving an old version of the data structure in place until all
- pre-existing readers have finished. These old versions are needed because
- such readers might hold a reference to them. RCU updates can therefore be
- rather expensive, and RCU is thus best suited for read-mostly situations.
- How can an RCU writer possibly determine when all readers are finished,
- given that readers might well leave absolutely no trace of their
- presence? There is a synchronize_rcu() primitive that blocks until all
- pre-existing readers have completed. An updater wishing to delete an
- element p from a linked list might do the following, while holding an
- appropriate lock, of course:
- list_del_rcu(p);
- synchronize_rcu();
- kfree(p);
- But the above code cannot be used in IRQ context -- the call_rcu()
- primitive must be used instead. This primitive takes a pointer to an
- rcu_head struct placed within the RCU-protected data structure and
- another pointer to a function that may be invoked later to free that
- structure. Code to delete an element p from the linked list from IRQ
- context might then be as follows:
- list_del_rcu(p);
- call_rcu(&p->rcu, p_callback);
- Since call_rcu() never blocks, this code can safely be used from within
- IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows:
- static void p_callback(struct rcu_head *rp)
- {
- struct pstruct *p = container_of(rp, struct pstruct, rcu);
- kfree(p);
- }
- Unloading Modules That Use call_rcu()
- But what if p_callback is defined in an unloadable module?
- If we unload the module while some RCU callbacks are pending,
- the CPUs executing these callbacks are going to be severely
- disappointed when they are later invoked, as fancifully depicted at
- http://lwn.net/images/ns/kernel/rcu-drop.jpg.
- We could try placing a synchronize_rcu() in the module-exit code path,
- but this is not sufficient. Although synchronize_rcu() does wait for a
- grace period to elapse, it does not wait for the callbacks to complete.
- One might be tempted to try several back-to-back synchronize_rcu()
- calls, but this is still not guaranteed to work. If there is a very
- heavy RCU-callback load, then some of the callbacks might be deferred
- in order to allow other processing to proceed. Such deferral is required
- in realtime kernels in order to avoid excessive scheduling latencies.
- rcu_barrier()
- We instead need the rcu_barrier() primitive. Rather than waiting for
- a grace period to elapse, rcu_barrier() waits for all outstanding RCU
- callbacks to complete. Please note that rcu_barrier() does -not- imply
- synchronize_rcu(), in particular, if there are no RCU callbacks queued
- anywhere, rcu_barrier() is within its rights to return immediately,
- without waiting for a grace period to elapse.
- Pseudo-code using rcu_barrier() is as follows:
- 1. Prevent any new RCU callbacks from being posted.
- 2. Execute rcu_barrier().
- 3. Allow the module to be unloaded.
- There are also rcu_barrier_bh(), rcu_barrier_sched(), and srcu_barrier()
- functions for the other flavors of RCU, and you of course must match
- the flavor of rcu_barrier() with that of call_rcu(). If your module
- uses multiple flavors of call_rcu(), then it must also use multiple
- flavors of rcu_barrier() when unloading that module. For example, if
- it uses call_rcu_bh(), call_srcu() on srcu_struct_1, and call_srcu() on
- srcu_struct_2(), then the following three lines of code will be required
- when unloading:
- 1 rcu_barrier_bh();
- 2 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_1);
- 3 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_2);
- The rcutorture module makes use of rcu_barrier() in its exit function
- as follows:
- 1 static void
- 2 rcu_torture_cleanup(void)
- 3 {
- 4 int i;
- 5
- 6 fullstop = 1;
- 7 if (shuffler_task != NULL) {
- 8 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_shuffle task");
- 9 kthread_stop(shuffler_task);
- 10 }
- 11 shuffler_task = NULL;
- 12
- 13 if (writer_task != NULL) {
- 14 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_writer task");
- 15 kthread_stop(writer_task);
- 16 }
- 17 writer_task = NULL;
- 18
- 19 if (reader_tasks != NULL) {
- 20 for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) {
- 21 if (reader_tasks[i] != NULL) {
- 22 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING(
- 23 "Stopping rcu_torture_reader task");
- 24 kthread_stop(reader_tasks[i]);
- 25 }
- 26 reader_tasks[i] = NULL;
- 27 }
- 28 kfree(reader_tasks);
- 29 reader_tasks = NULL;
- 30 }
- 31 rcu_torture_current = NULL;
- 32
- 33 if (fakewriter_tasks != NULL) {
- 34 for (i = 0; i < nfakewriters; i++) {
- 35 if (fakewriter_tasks[i] != NULL) {
- 36 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING(
- 37 "Stopping rcu_torture_fakewriter task");
- 38 kthread_stop(fakewriter_tasks[i]);
- 39 }
- 40 fakewriter_tasks[i] = NULL;
- 41 }
- 42 kfree(fakewriter_tasks);
- 43 fakewriter_tasks = NULL;
- 44 }
- 45
- 46 if (stats_task != NULL) {
- 47 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_stats task");
- 48 kthread_stop(stats_task);
- 49 }
- 50 stats_task = NULL;
- 51
- 52 /* Wait for all RCU callbacks to fire. */
- 53 rcu_barrier();
- 54
- 55 rcu_torture_stats_print(); /* -After- the stats thread is stopped! */
- 56
- 57 if (cur_ops->cleanup != NULL)
- 58 cur_ops->cleanup();
- 59 if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_torture_error))
- 60 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: FAILURE");
- 61 else
- 62 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: SUCCESS");
- 63 }
- Line 6 sets a global variable that prevents any RCU callbacks from
- re-posting themselves. This will not be necessary in most cases, since
- RCU callbacks rarely include calls to call_rcu(). However, the rcutorture
- module is an exception to this rule, and therefore needs to set this
- global variable.
- Lines 7-50 stop all the kernel tasks associated with the rcutorture
- module. Therefore, once execution reaches line 53, no more rcutorture
- RCU callbacks will be posted. The rcu_barrier() call on line 53 waits
- for any pre-existing callbacks to complete.
- Then lines 55-62 print status and do operation-specific cleanup, and
- then return, permitting the module-unload operation to be completed.
- Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
- be required?
- Your module might have additional complications. For example, if your
- module invokes call_rcu() from timers, you will need to first cancel all
- the timers, and only then invoke rcu_barrier() to wait for any remaining
- RCU callbacks to complete.
- Of course, if you module uses call_rcu_bh(), you will need to invoke
- rcu_barrier_bh() before unloading. Similarly, if your module uses
- call_rcu_sched(), you will need to invoke rcu_barrier_sched() before
- unloading. If your module uses call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(), -and-
- call_rcu_sched(), then you will need to invoke each of rcu_barrier(),
- rcu_barrier_bh(), and rcu_barrier_sched().
- Implementing rcu_barrier()
- Dipankar Sarma's implementation of rcu_barrier() makes use of the fact
- that RCU callbacks are never reordered once queued on one of the per-CPU
- queues. His implementation queues an RCU callback on each of the per-CPU
- callback queues, and then waits until they have all started executing, at
- which point, all earlier RCU callbacks are guaranteed to have completed.
- The original code for rcu_barrier() was as follows:
- 1 void rcu_barrier(void)
- 2 {
- 3 BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
- 4 /* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */
- 5 mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
- 6 init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
- 7 atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 0);
- 8 on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, NULL, 0, 1);
- 9 wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
- 10 mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
- 11 }
- Line 3 verifies that the caller is in process context, and lines 5 and 10
- use rcu_barrier_mutex to ensure that only one rcu_barrier() is using the
- global completion and counters at a time, which are initialized on lines
- 6 and 7. Line 8 causes each CPU to invoke rcu_barrier_func(), which is
- shown below. Note that the final "1" in on_each_cpu()'s argument list
- ensures that all the calls to rcu_barrier_func() will have completed
- before on_each_cpu() returns. Line 9 then waits for the completion.
- This code was rewritten in 2008 to support rcu_barrier_bh() and
- rcu_barrier_sched() in addition to the original rcu_barrier().
- The rcu_barrier_func() runs on each CPU, where it invokes call_rcu()
- to post an RCU callback, as follows:
- 1 static void rcu_barrier_func(void *notused)
- 2 {
- 3 int cpu = smp_processor_id();
- 4 struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu);
- 5 struct rcu_head *head;
- 6
- 7 head = &rdp->barrier;
- 8 atomic_inc(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count);
- 9 call_rcu(head, rcu_barrier_callback);
- 10 }
- Lines 3 and 4 locate RCU's internal per-CPU rcu_data structure,
- which contains the struct rcu_head that needed for the later call to
- call_rcu(). Line 7 picks up a pointer to this struct rcu_head, and line
- 8 increments a global counter. This counter will later be decremented
- by the callback. Line 9 then registers the rcu_barrier_callback() on
- the current CPU's queue.
- The rcu_barrier_callback() function simply atomically decrements the
- rcu_barrier_cpu_count variable and finalizes the completion when it
- reaches zero, as follows:
- 1 static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *notused)
- 2 {
- 3 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count))
- 4 complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
- 5 }
- Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
- immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the
- value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations
- are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
- rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?
- rcu_barrier() Summary
- The rcu_barrier() primitive has seen relatively little use, since most
- code using RCU is in the core kernel rather than in modules. However, if
- you are using RCU from an unloadable module, you need to use rcu_barrier()
- so that your module may be safely unloaded.
- Answers to Quick Quizzes
- Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
- be required?
- Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
- implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using
- RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at
- filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier()
- in response, so that Nikita could invoke it during the
- filesystem-unmount process.
- Much later, yours truly hit the RCU module-unload problem when
- implementing rcutorture, and found that rcu_barrier() solves
- this problem as well.
- Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
- immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the
- value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations
- are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
- rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?
- Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
- argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through
- to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(),
- causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of
- rcu_barrier_func() has completed. This by itself would prevent
- a grace period from completing on non-CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels,
- since each CPU must undergo a context switch (or other quiescent
- state) before the grace period can complete. However, this is
- of no use in CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels.
- Therefore, on_each_cpu() disables preemption across its call
- to smp_call_function() and also across the local call to
- rcu_barrier_func(). This prevents the local CPU from context
- switching, again preventing grace periods from completing. This
- means that all CPUs have executed rcu_barrier_func() before
- the first rcu_barrier_callback() can possibly execute, in turn
- preventing rcu_barrier_cpu_count from prematurely reaching zero.
- Currently, -rt implementations of RCU keep but a single global
- queue for RCU callbacks, and thus do not suffer from this
- problem. However, when the -rt RCU eventually does have per-CPU
- callback queues, things will have to change. One simple change
- is to add an rcu_read_lock() before line 8 of rcu_barrier()
- and an rcu_read_unlock() after line 8 of this same function. If
- you can think of a better change, please let me know!
|