OSCL-LXR linux-6.0.1/​Documentation/​RCU/​Design/​Memory-Ordering/​Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst	Source navigation Diff markup Identifier search General search
	Version: linux-6.0.1 spark-3.0.0 hadoop-3.2.0-src hadoop-3.3.0-src spark-2.4.7 linux-4.15.13 hadoop-2.7.4-src Revert   Change

 ======================================================
 A Tour Through TREE_RCU's Grace-Period Memory Ordering
 ======================================================
 
 August 8, 2017
 
 This article was contributed by Paul E. McKenney
 
 Introduction
 ============
 
 This document gives a rough visual overview of how Tree RCU's
 grace-period memory ordering guarantee is provided.
 
 What Is Tree RCU's Grace Period Memory Ordering Guarantee?
 ==========================================================
 
 RCU grace periods provide extremely strong memory-ordering guarantees
 for non-idle non-offline code.
 Any code that happens after the end of a given RCU grace period is guaranteed
 to see the effects of all accesses prior to the beginning of that grace
 period that are within RCU read-side critical sections.
 Similarly, any code that happens before the beginning of a given RCU grace
 period is guaranteed to not see the effects of all accesses following the end
 of that grace period that are within RCU read-side critical sections.
 
 Note well that RCU-sched read-side critical sections include any region
 of code for which preemption is disabled.
 Given that each individual machine instruction can be thought of as
 an extremely small region of preemption-disabled code, one can think of
 ``synchronize_rcu()`` as ``smp_mb()`` on steroids.
 
 RCU updaters use this guarantee by splitting their updates into
 two phases, one of which is executed before the grace period and
 the other of which is executed after the grace period.
 In the most common use case, phase one removes an element from
 a linked RCU-protected data structure, and phase two frees that element.
 For this to work, any readers that have witnessed state prior to the
 phase-one update (in the common case, removal) must not witness state
 following the phase-two update (in the common case, freeing).
 
 The RCU implementation provides this guarantee using a network
 of lock-based critical sections, memory barriers, and per-CPU
 processing, as is described in the following sections.
 
 Tree RCU Grace Period Memory Ordering Building Blocks
 =====================================================
 
 The workhorse for RCU's grace-period memory ordering is the
 critical section for the ``rcu_node`` structure's
 ``->lock``. These critical sections use helper functions for lock
 acquisition, including ``raw_spin_lock_rcu_node()``,
 ``raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node()``, and ``raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node()``.
 Their lock-release counterparts are ``raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node()``,
 ``raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node()``, and
 ``raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node()``, respectively.
 For completeness, a ``raw_spin_trylock_rcu_node()`` is also provided.
 The key point is that the lock-acquisition functions, including
 ``raw_spin_trylock_rcu_node()``, all invoke ``smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()``
 immediately after successful acquisition of the lock.
 
 Therefore, for any given ``rcu_node`` structure, any access
 happening before one of the above lock-release functions will be seen
 by all CPUs as happening before any access happening after a later
 one of the above lock-acquisition functions.
 Furthermore, any access happening before one of the
 above lock-release function on any given CPU will be seen by all
 CPUs as happening before any access happening after a later one
 of the above lock-acquisition functions executing on that same CPU,
 even if the lock-release and lock-acquisition functions are operating
 on different ``rcu_node`` structures.
 Tree RCU uses these two ordering guarantees to form an ordering
 network among all CPUs that were in any way involved in the grace
 period, including any CPUs that came online or went offline during
 the grace period in question.
 
 The following litmus test exhibits the ordering effects of these
 lock-acquisition and lock-release functions::
 
     1 int x, y, z;
     2
     3 void task0(void)
     4 {
     5   raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp);
     6   WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
     7   r1 = READ_ONCE(y);
     8   raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp);
     9 }
    10
    11 void task1(void)
    12 {
    13   raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp);
    14   WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
    15   r2 = READ_ONCE(z);
    16   raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp);
    17 }
    18
    19 void task2(void)
    20 {
    21   WRITE_ONCE(z, 1);
    22   smp_mb();
    23   r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
    24 }
    25
    26 WARN_ON(r1 == 0 && r2 == 0 && r3 == 0);
 
 The ``WARN_ON()`` is evaluated at "the end of time",
 after all changes have propagated throughout the system.
 Without the ``smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()`` provided by the
 acquisition functions, this ``WARN_ON()`` could trigger, for example
 on PowerPC.
 The ``smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()`` invocations prevent this
 ``WARN_ON()`` from triggering.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | But the chain of rcu_node-structure lock acquisitions guarantees      |
 | that new readers will see all of the updater's pre-grace-period       |
 | accesses and also guarantees that the updater's post-grace-period     |
 | accesses will see all of the old reader's accesses.  So why do we     |
 | need all of those calls to smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()?               |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Because we must provide ordering for RCU's polling grace-period       |
 | primitives, for example, get_state_synchronize_rcu() and              |
 | poll_state_synchronize_rcu().  Consider this code::                   |
 |                                                                       |
 |  CPU 0                                     CPU 1                      |
 |  ----                                      ----                       |
 |  WRITE_ONCE(X, 1)                          WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1)           |
 |  g = get_state_synchronize_rcu()           smp_mb()                   |
 |  while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(g))    r1 = READ_ONCE(X)          |
 |          continue;                                                    |
 |  r0 = READ_ONCE(Y)                                                    |
 |                                                                       |
 | RCU guarantees that the outcome r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 will not           |
 | happen, even if CPU 1 is in an RCU extended quiescent state           |
 | (idle or offline) and thus won't interact directly with the RCU       |
 | core processing at all.                                               |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 This approach must be extended to include idle CPUs, which need
 RCU's grace-period memory ordering guarantee to extend to any
 RCU read-side critical sections preceding and following the current
 idle sojourn.
 This case is handled by calls to the strongly ordered
 ``atomic_add_return()`` read-modify-write atomic operation that
 is invoked within ``rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter()`` at idle-entry
 time and within ``rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit()`` at idle-exit time.
 The grace-period kthread invokes ``rcu_dynticks_snap()`` and
 ``rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since()`` (both of which invoke
 an ``atomic_add_return()`` of zero) to detect idle CPUs.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | But what about CPUs that remain offline for the entire grace period?  |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Such CPUs will be offline at the beginning of the grace period, so    |
 | the grace period won't expect quiescent states from them. Races       |
 | between grace-period start and CPU-hotplug operations are mediated    |
 | by the CPU's leaf ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->lock`` as described    |
 | above.                                                                |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 The approach must be extended to handle one final case, that of waking a
 task blocked in ``synchronize_rcu()``. This task might be affinitied to
 a CPU that is not yet aware that the grace period has ended, and thus
 might not yet be subject to the grace period's memory ordering.
 Therefore, there is an ``smp_mb()`` after the return from
 ``wait_for_completion()`` in the ``synchronize_rcu()`` code path.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | What? Where??? I don't see any ``smp_mb()`` after the return from     |
 | ``wait_for_completion()``!!!                                          |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | That would be because I spotted the need for that ``smp_mb()`` during |
 | the creation of this documentation, and it is therefore unlikely to   |
 | hit mainline before v4.14. Kudos to Lance Roy, Will Deacon, Peter     |
 | Zijlstra, and Jonathan Cameron for asking questions that sensitized   |
 | me to the rather elaborate sequence of events that demonstrate the    |
 | need for this memory barrier.                                         |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 Tree RCU's grace--period memory-ordering guarantees rely most heavily on
 the ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->lock`` field, so much so that it is
 necessary to abbreviate this pattern in the diagrams in the next
 section. For example, consider the ``rcu_prepare_for_idle()`` function
 shown below, which is one of several functions that enforce ordering of
 newly arrived RCU callbacks against future grace periods:
 
 ::
 
     1 static void rcu_prepare_for_idle(void)
     2 {
     3   bool needwake;
     4   struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
     5   struct rcu_node *rnp;
     6   int tne;
     7
     8   lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
     9   if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
    10     return;
    11
    12   /* Handle nohz enablement switches conservatively. */
    13   tne = READ_ONCE(tick_nohz_active);
    14   if (tne != rdp->tick_nohz_enabled_snap) {
    15     if (!rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist))
    16       invoke_rcu_core(); /* force nohz to see update. */
    17     rdp->tick_nohz_enabled_snap = tne;
    18     return;
    19   }
    20   if (!tne)
    21     return;
    22
    23   /*
    24    * If we have not yet accelerated this jiffy, accelerate all
    25    * callbacks on this CPU.
    26   */
    27   if (rdp->last_accelerate == jiffies)
    28     return;
    29   rdp->last_accelerate = jiffies;
    30   if (rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist)) {
    31     rnp = rdp->mynode;
    32     raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp); /* irqs already disabled. */
    33     needwake = rcu_accelerate_cbs(rnp, rdp);
    34     raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp); /* irqs remain disabled. */
    35     if (needwake)
    36       rcu_gp_kthread_wake();
    37   }
    38 }
 
 But the only part of ``rcu_prepare_for_idle()`` that really matters for
 this discussion are lines 32–34. We will therefore abbreviate this
 function as follows:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: rcu_node-lock.svg
 
 The box represents the ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->lock`` critical
 section, with the double line on top representing the additional
 ``smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()``.
 
 Tree RCU Grace Period Memory Ordering Components
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 Tree RCU's grace-period memory-ordering guarantee is provided by a
 number of RCU components:
 
 #. `Callback Registry`_
 #. `Grace-Period Initialization`_
 #. `Self-Reported Quiescent States`_
 #. `Dynamic Tick Interface`_
 #. `CPU-Hotplug Interface`_
 #. `Forcing Quiescent States`_
 #. `Grace-Period Cleanup`_
 #. `Callback Invocation`_
 
 Each of the following section looks at the corresponding component in
 detail.
 
 Callback Registry
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 If RCU's grace-period guarantee is to mean anything at all, any access
 that happens before a given invocation of ``call_rcu()`` must also
 happen before the corresponding grace period. The implementation of this
 portion of RCU's grace period guarantee is shown in the following
 figure:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-callback-registry.svg
 
 Because ``call_rcu()`` normally acts only on CPU-local state, it
 provides no ordering guarantees, either for itself or for phase one of
 the update (which again will usually be removal of an element from an
 RCU-protected data structure). It simply enqueues the ``rcu_head``
 structure on a per-CPU list, which cannot become associated with a grace
 period until a later call to ``rcu_accelerate_cbs()``, as shown in the
 diagram above.
 
 One set of code paths shown on the left invokes ``rcu_accelerate_cbs()``
 via ``note_gp_changes()``, either directly from ``call_rcu()`` (if the
 current CPU is inundated with queued ``rcu_head`` structures) or more
 likely from an ``RCU_SOFTIRQ`` handler. Another code path in the middle
 is taken only in kernels built with ``CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y``, which
 invokes ``rcu_accelerate_cbs()`` via ``rcu_prepare_for_idle()``. The
 final code path on the right is taken only in kernels built with
 ``CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=y``, which invokes ``rcu_accelerate_cbs()`` via
 ``rcu_advance_cbs()``, ``rcu_migrate_callbacks``,
 ``rcutree_migrate_callbacks()``, and ``takedown_cpu()``, which in turn
 is invoked on a surviving CPU after the outgoing CPU has been completely
 offlined.
 
 There are a few other code paths within grace-period processing that
 opportunistically invoke ``rcu_accelerate_cbs()``. However, either way,
 all of the CPU's recently queued ``rcu_head`` structures are associated
 with a future grace-period number under the protection of the CPU's lead
 ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->lock``. In all cases, there is full
 ordering against any prior critical section for that same ``rcu_node``
 structure's ``->lock``, and also full ordering against any of the
 current task's or CPU's prior critical sections for any ``rcu_node``
 structure's ``->lock``.
 
 The next section will show how this ordering ensures that any accesses
 prior to the ``call_rcu()`` (particularly including phase one of the
 update) happen before the start of the corresponding grace period.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | But what about ``synchronize_rcu()``?                                 |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | The ``synchronize_rcu()`` passes ``call_rcu()`` to ``wait_rcu_gp()``, |
 | which invokes it. So either way, it eventually comes down to          |
 | ``call_rcu()``.                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 Grace-Period Initialization
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 Grace-period initialization is carried out by the grace-period kernel
 thread, which makes several passes over the ``rcu_node`` tree within the
 ``rcu_gp_init()`` function. This means that showing the full flow of
 ordering through the grace-period computation will require duplicating
 this tree. If you find this confusing, please note that the state of the
 ``rcu_node`` changes over time, just like Heraclitus's river. However,
 to keep the ``rcu_node`` river tractable, the grace-period kernel
 thread's traversals are presented in multiple parts, starting in this
 section with the various phases of grace-period initialization.
 
 The first ordering-related grace-period initialization action is to
 advance the ``rcu_state`` structure's ``->gp_seq`` grace-period-number
 counter, as shown below:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-gp-init-1.svg
 
 The actual increment is carried out using ``smp_store_release()``, which
 helps reject false-positive RCU CPU stall detection. Note that only the
 root ``rcu_node`` structure is touched.
 
 The first pass through the ``rcu_node`` tree updates bitmasks based on
 CPUs having come online or gone offline since the start of the previous
 grace period. In the common case where the number of online CPUs for
 this ``rcu_node`` structure has not transitioned to or from zero, this
 pass will scan only the leaf ``rcu_node`` structures. However, if the
 number of online CPUs for a given leaf ``rcu_node`` structure has
 transitioned from zero, ``rcu_init_new_rnp()`` will be invoked for the
 first incoming CPU. Similarly, if the number of online CPUs for a given
 leaf ``rcu_node`` structure has transitioned to zero,
 ``rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp()`` will be invoked for the last outgoing CPU.
 The diagram below shows the path of ordering if the leftmost
 ``rcu_node`` structure onlines its first CPU and if the next
 ``rcu_node`` structure has no online CPUs (or, alternatively if the
 leftmost ``rcu_node`` structure offlines its last CPU and if the next
 ``rcu_node`` structure has no online CPUs).
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-gp-init-2.svg
 
 The final ``rcu_gp_init()`` pass through the ``rcu_node`` tree traverses
 breadth-first, setting each ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->gp_seq`` field
 to the newly advanced value from the ``rcu_state`` structure, as shown
 in the following diagram.
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-gp-init-3.svg
 
 This change will also cause each CPU's next call to
 ``__note_gp_changes()`` to notice that a new grace period has started,
 as described in the next section. But because the grace-period kthread
 started the grace period at the root (with the advancing of the
 ``rcu_state`` structure's ``->gp_seq`` field) before setting each leaf
 ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->gp_seq`` field, each CPU's observation of
 the start of the grace period will happen after the actual start of the
 grace period.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | But what about the CPU that started the grace period? Why wouldn't it |
 | see the start of the grace period right when it started that grace    |
 | period?                                                               |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | In some deep philosophical and overly anthromorphized sense, yes, the |
 | CPU starting the grace period is immediately aware of having done so. |
 | However, if we instead assume that RCU is not self-aware, then even   |
 | the CPU starting the grace period does not really become aware of the |
 | start of this grace period until its first call to                    |
 | ``__note_gp_changes()``. On the other hand, this CPU potentially gets |
 | early notification because it invokes ``__note_gp_changes()`` during  |
 | its last ``rcu_gp_init()`` pass through its leaf ``rcu_node``         |
 | structure.                                                            |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 Self-Reported Quiescent States
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 When all entities that might block the grace period have reported
 quiescent states (or as described in a later section, had quiescent
 states reported on their behalf), the grace period can end. Online
 non-idle CPUs report their own quiescent states, as shown in the
 following diagram:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-qs.svg
 
 This is for the last CPU to report a quiescent state, which signals the
 end of the grace period. Earlier quiescent states would push up the
 ``rcu_node`` tree only until they encountered an ``rcu_node`` structure
 that is waiting for additional quiescent states. However, ordering is
 nevertheless preserved because some later quiescent state will acquire
 that ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->lock``.
 
 Any number of events can lead up to a CPU invoking ``note_gp_changes``
 (or alternatively, directly invoking ``__note_gp_changes()``), at which
 point that CPU will notice the start of a new grace period while holding
 its leaf ``rcu_node`` lock. Therefore, all execution shown in this
 diagram happens after the start of the grace period. In addition, this
 CPU will consider any RCU read-side critical section that started before
 the invocation of ``__note_gp_changes()`` to have started before the
 grace period, and thus a critical section that the grace period must
 wait on.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | But a RCU read-side critical section might have started after the     |
 | beginning of the grace period (the advancing of ``->gp_seq`` from     |
 | earlier), so why should the grace period wait on such a critical      |
 | section?                                                              |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | It is indeed not necessary for the grace period to wait on such a     |
 | critical section. However, it is permissible to wait on it. And it is |
 | furthermore important to wait on it, as this lazy approach is far     |
 | more scalable than a “big bang” all-at-once grace-period start could  |
 | possibly be.                                                          |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 If the CPU does a context switch, a quiescent state will be noted by
 ``rcu_note_context_switch()`` on the left. On the other hand, if the CPU
 takes a scheduler-clock interrupt while executing in usermode, a
 quiescent state will be noted by ``rcu_sched_clock_irq()`` on the right.
 Either way, the passage through a quiescent state will be noted in a
 per-CPU variable.
 
 The next time an ``RCU_SOFTIRQ`` handler executes on this CPU (for
 example, after the next scheduler-clock interrupt), ``rcu_core()`` will
 invoke ``rcu_check_quiescent_state()``, which will notice the recorded
 quiescent state, and invoke ``rcu_report_qs_rdp()``. If
 ``rcu_report_qs_rdp()`` verifies that the quiescent state really does
 apply to the current grace period, it invokes ``rcu_report_rnp()`` which
 traverses up the ``rcu_node`` tree as shown at the bottom of the
 diagram, clearing bits from each ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->qsmask``
 field, and propagating up the tree when the result is zero.
 
 Note that traversal passes upwards out of a given ``rcu_node`` structure
 only if the current CPU is reporting the last quiescent state for the
 subtree headed by that ``rcu_node`` structure. A key point is that if a
 CPU's traversal stops at a given ``rcu_node`` structure, then there will
 be a later traversal by another CPU (or perhaps the same one) that
 proceeds upwards from that point, and the ``rcu_node`` ``->lock``
 guarantees that the first CPU's quiescent state happens before the
 remainder of the second CPU's traversal. Applying this line of thought
 repeatedly shows that all CPUs' quiescent states happen before the last
 CPU traverses through the root ``rcu_node`` structure, the “last CPU”
 being the one that clears the last bit in the root ``rcu_node``
 structure's ``->qsmask`` field.
 
 Dynamic Tick Interface
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 Due to energy-efficiency considerations, RCU is forbidden from
 disturbing idle CPUs. CPUs are therefore required to notify RCU when
 entering or leaving idle state, which they do via fully ordered
 value-returning atomic operations on a per-CPU variable. The ordering
 effects are as shown below:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-dyntick.svg
 
 The RCU grace-period kernel thread samples the per-CPU idleness variable
 while holding the corresponding CPU's leaf ``rcu_node`` structure's
 ``->lock``. This means that any RCU read-side critical sections that
 precede the idle period (the oval near the top of the diagram above)
 will happen before the end of the current grace period. Similarly, the
 beginning of the current grace period will happen before any RCU
 read-side critical sections that follow the idle period (the oval near
 the bottom of the diagram above).
 
 Plumbing this into the full grace-period execution is described
 `below <Forcing Quiescent States_>`__.
 
 CPU-Hotplug Interface
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 RCU is also forbidden from disturbing offline CPUs, which might well be
 powered off and removed from the system completely. CPUs are therefore
 required to notify RCU of their comings and goings as part of the
 corresponding CPU hotplug operations. The ordering effects are shown
 below:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-hotplug.svg
 
 Because CPU hotplug operations are much less frequent than idle
 transitions, they are heavier weight, and thus acquire the CPU's leaf
 ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->lock`` and update this structure's
 ``->qsmaskinitnext``. The RCU grace-period kernel thread samples this
 mask to detect CPUs having gone offline since the beginning of this
 grace period.
 
 Plumbing this into the full grace-period execution is described
 `below <Forcing Quiescent States_>`__.
 
 Forcing Quiescent States
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 As noted above, idle and offline CPUs cannot report their own quiescent
 states, and therefore the grace-period kernel thread must do the
 reporting on their behalf. This process is called “forcing quiescent
 states”, it is repeated every few jiffies, and its ordering effects are
 shown below:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-gp-fqs.svg
 
 Each pass of quiescent state forcing is guaranteed to traverse the leaf
 ``rcu_node`` structures, and if there are no new quiescent states due to
 recently idled and/or offlined CPUs, then only the leaves are traversed.
 However, if there is a newly offlined CPU as illustrated on the left or
 a newly idled CPU as illustrated on the right, the corresponding
 quiescent state will be driven up towards the root. As with
 self-reported quiescent states, the upwards driving stops once it
 reaches an ``rcu_node`` structure that has quiescent states outstanding
 from other CPUs.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | The leftmost drive to root stopped before it reached the root         |
 | ``rcu_node`` structure, which means that there are still CPUs         |
 | subordinate to that structure on which the current grace period is    |
 | waiting. Given that, how is it possible that the rightmost drive to   |
 | root ended the grace period?                                          |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Good analysis! It is in fact impossible in the absence of bugs in     |
 | RCU. But this diagram is complex enough as it is, so simplicity       |
 | overrode accuracy. You can think of it as poetic license, or you can  |
 | think of it as misdirection that is resolved in the                   |
 | `stitched-together diagram <Putting It All Together_>`__.             |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 Grace-Period Cleanup
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 Grace-period cleanup first scans the ``rcu_node`` tree breadth-first
 advancing all the ``->gp_seq`` fields, then it advances the
 ``rcu_state`` structure's ``->gp_seq`` field. The ordering effects are
 shown below:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-gp-cleanup.svg
 
 As indicated by the oval at the bottom of the diagram, once grace-period
 cleanup is complete, the next grace period can begin.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | But when precisely does the grace period end?                         |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | **Answer**:                                                           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | There is no useful single point at which the grace period can be said |
 | to end. The earliest reasonable candidate is as soon as the last CPU  |
 | has reported its quiescent state, but it may be some milliseconds     |
 | before RCU becomes aware of this. The latest reasonable candidate is  |
 | once the ``rcu_state`` structure's ``->gp_seq`` field has been        |
 | updated, but it is quite possible that some CPUs have already         |
 | completed phase two of their updates by that time. In short, if you   |
 | are going to work with RCU, you need to learn to embrace uncertainty. |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 Callback Invocation
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 Once a given CPU's leaf ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->gp_seq`` field has
 been updated, that CPU can begin invoking its RCU callbacks that were
 waiting for this grace period to end. These callbacks are identified by
 ``rcu_advance_cbs()``, which is usually invoked by
 ``__note_gp_changes()``. As shown in the diagram below, this invocation
 can be triggered by the scheduling-clock interrupt
 (``rcu_sched_clock_irq()`` on the left) or by idle entry
 (``rcu_cleanup_after_idle()`` on the right, but only for kernels build
 with ``CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y``). Either way, ``RCU_SOFTIRQ`` is
 raised, which results in ``rcu_do_batch()`` invoking the callbacks,
 which in turn allows those callbacks to carry out (either directly or
 indirectly via wakeup) the needed phase-two processing for each update.
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-callback-invocation.svg
 
 Please note that callback invocation can also be prompted by any number
 of corner-case code paths, for example, when a CPU notes that it has
 excessive numbers of callbacks queued. In all cases, the CPU acquires
 its leaf ``rcu_node`` structure's ``->lock`` before invoking callbacks,
 which preserves the required ordering against the newly completed grace
 period.
 
 However, if the callback function communicates to other CPUs, for
 example, doing a wakeup, then it is that function's responsibility to
 maintain ordering. For example, if the callback function wakes up a task
 that runs on some other CPU, proper ordering must in place in both the
 callback function and the task being awakened. To see why this is
 important, consider the top half of the `grace-period
 cleanup`_ diagram. The callback might be
 running on a CPU corresponding to the leftmost leaf ``rcu_node``
 structure, and awaken a task that is to run on a CPU corresponding to
 the rightmost leaf ``rcu_node`` structure, and the grace-period kernel
 thread might not yet have reached the rightmost leaf. In this case, the
 grace period's memory ordering might not yet have reached that CPU, so
 again the callback function and the awakened task must supply proper
 ordering.
 
 Putting It All Together
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 A stitched-together diagram is here:
 
 .. kernel-figure:: TreeRCU-gp.svg
 
 Legal Statement
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 This work represents the view of the author and does not necessarily
 represent the view of IBM.
 
 Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
 
 Other company, product, and service names may be trademarks or service
 marks of others.

This page was automatically generated by the 2.1.0 LXR engine. The LXR team