Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/15] rcu: Introduce for_each_rcu_flavor()and use it

From: Josh Triplett
Date: Fri Jun 15 2012 - 19:52:54 EST


On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:06:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The arrival of TREE_PREEMPT_RCU some years back included some ugly
> code involving either #ifdef or #ifdef'ed wrapper functions to iterate
> over all non-SRCU flavors of RCU. This commit therefore introduces
> a for_each_rcu_flavor() iterator over the rcu_state structures for each
> flavor of RCU to clean up a bit of the ugliness.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Great cleanup!

A few comments below, though.

> kernel/rcutree.c | 53 +++++++++++++---------
> kernel/rcutree.h | 12 ++---
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 116 -----------------------------------------------
> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 145 deletions(-)

Awesome diffstat.

> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index bd4e41c..75ad92a 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct rcu_state rcu_bh_state = RCU_STATE_INITIALIZER(rcu_bh, call_rcu_bh);
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_data);
>
> static struct rcu_state *rcu_state;
> +LIST_HEAD(rcu_struct_flavors);

Does any means exist to turn this into a constant array known at compile
time rather than a runtime linked list? Having this as a compile-time
constant may allow the compiler to unroll for_each_rcu_flavor and
potentially inline the calls inside it.

> @@ -2539,9 +2548,10 @@ rcu_init_percpu_data(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp, int preemptible)
>
> static void __cpuinit rcu_prepare_cpu(int cpu)
> {
> - rcu_init_percpu_data(cpu, &rcu_sched_state, 0);
> - rcu_init_percpu_data(cpu, &rcu_bh_state, 0);
> - rcu_preempt_init_percpu_data(cpu);
> + struct rcu_state *rsp;
> +
> + for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp)
> + rcu_init_percpu_data(cpu, rsp, 0);

This results in passing 0 as the "preemptible" parameter of
rcu_init_percpu_data, which seems wrong if the preemptible parameter has
any meaning at all. :)

> @@ -2577,18 +2588,15 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
> * touch any data without introducing corruption. We send the
> * dying CPU's callbacks to an arbitrarily chosen online CPU.
> */
> - rcu_cleanup_dying_cpu(&rcu_bh_state);
> - rcu_cleanup_dying_cpu(&rcu_sched_state);
> - rcu_preempt_cleanup_dying_cpu();
> - rcu_cleanup_after_idle(cpu);
> + for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp)
> + rcu_cleanup_dying_cpu(rsp);

Why did rcu_cleanup_after_idle go away here?

- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/