| 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. This primitive is similar |
| to synchronize_rcu(), but instead of waiting solely for a grace |
| period to elapse, it also waits for all outstanding RCU callbacks to |
| complete. 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. |
| |
| 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! |