From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
Subject: [ltt-dev] [PATCH RFC] call_rcu() interface for userspace-rcu
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 05:12:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101102121232.GH2664@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101101202530.GB12059@Krystal>
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 04:25:30PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:57:47AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > >+static void *call_rcu_thread(void *arg)
> > > >+{
> > > >+ [...]
> > > >+ else {
> > > >+ call_rcu_lock(&crdp->mtx);
> > > >+ crdp->flags &= ~URCU_CALL_RCU_RUNNING;
> > > >+ if (&cbs->next != cbs_tail&&
> > > >+ pthread_cond_wait(&crdp->cond,&crdp->mtx) != 0) {
> > > >+ perror("pthread_cond_wait");
> > > >+ exit(-1);
> > > >+ } else
> > > >+ poll(NULL, 0, 10);
> > > >+ crdp->flags |= URCU_CALL_RCU_RUNNING;
> > > >+ call_rcu_unlock(&crdp->mtx);
> > > >+ }
> > > >+ }
> > > >+ return NULL; /* NOTREACHED */
> > > >+}
> > >
> > > Given the way you handle URCU_CALL_RCU_RUNNING above, the flag will
> > > be reset in call_rcu iff call_rcu sees contention on the lock.
> >
> > Doesn't pthread_cond_wait() release the mutex for the duration of the
> > wait? Ah, are you worried about the poll() under the lock? I am
> > moving this out from under the lock.
> >
> > > >+ call_rcu_lock(&crdp->mtx);
> > > >+ if (!(crdp->flags& URCU_CALL_RCU_RUNNING)) {
> > > >+ if (pthread_cond_signal(&crdp->cond) != 0) {
> > > >+ perror("pthread_cond_signal");
> > > >+ exit(-1);
> > > >+ }
> > > >+ }
> > > >+ call_rcu_unlock(&crdp->mtx);
> > > >+ }
> > > >+}
> > >
> > > So, the mutex is basically unnecessary if some futex magic replaces
> > > the condition variable. For example, in the thread:
> > >
> > > else {
> > > retry:
> > > flags = crdp->flags;
> > > if ((flags & URCU_CALL_RCU_REQUESTED))
> > > continue;
> > > if (cmpxchg (&crdp->flags, flags,
> > > flags & ~URCU_CALL_RCU_RUNNING) != flags)
> > > goto retry;
> > >
> > > futex_wait (&crdp->flags,
> > > flags & ~URCU_CALL_RCU_RUNNING);
> > > }
> > >
> > > and in call_rcu:
> > >
> > > mb ();
> > > /* If the thread is not blocked, it will see our request. */
> > > do {
> > > flags = crdp->flags;
> > > /* If there's already a request pending, no need to
> > > wake up the process. If the thread is running, no
> > > need to do anything, it'll pick up our request. */
> > > if (flags &
> > > (URCU_CALL_RCU_REQUESTED | URCU_CALL_RCU_RUNNING))
> > > return;
> > > } while (cmpxchg (&crdp->flags, flags,
> > > flags | URCU_CALL_RCU_REQUESTED) != flags);
> > > futex_wake (&crdp->flags, 1);
> >
> > OK, sounds like a nice optimization, though a bit Linux-specific.
> > I will stick with the POSIX stuff for the moment, and once I am
> > convinced that it really is working, I might consider doing futexes
> > if running on Linux.
>
> Paul, this is why I created urcu-futex.h. It offers the futex API, but with a
> polling or pthread-cond-based fallback for non-Linux platforms. So please feel
> free to implement this using futex_noasync() (this is the version using a
> pthread_cond() fallback, which is not signal-safe, but does not require
> polling).
OK, once I become more confident that I don't have bugs elsewhere, I will
try out this approach.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-02 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20101029162534.GA11742@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <4CCBDE0B.8060102@redhat.com>
2010-11-01 20:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-01 20:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-11-02 12:12 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-11-11 8:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2010-11-12 0:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2010-11-16 0:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101102121232.GH2664@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox