| RCU on Uniprocessor Systems |
| |
| |
| A common misconception is that, on UP systems, the call_rcu() primitive |
| may immediately invoke its function, and that the synchronize_rcu() |
| primitive may return immediately. The basis of this misconception |
| is that since there is only one CPU, it should not be necessary to |
| wait for anything else to get done, since there are no other CPUs for |
| anything else to be happening on. Although this approach will -sort- -of- |
| work a surprising amount of the time, it is a very bad idea in general. |
| This document presents two examples that demonstrate exactly how bad an |
| idea this is. |
| |
| |
| Example 1: softirq Suicide |
| |
| Suppose that an RCU-based algorithm scans a linked list containing |
| elements A, B, and C in process context, and can delete elements from |
| this same list in softirq context. Suppose that the process-context scan |
| is referencing element B when it is interrupted by softirq processing, |
| which deletes element B, and then invokes call_rcu() to free element B |
| after a grace period. |
| |
| Now, if call_rcu() were to directly invoke its arguments, then upon return |
| from softirq, the list scan would find itself referencing a newly freed |
| element B. This situation can greatly decrease the life expectancy of |
| your kernel. |
| |
| |
| Example 2: Function-Call Fatality |
| |
| Of course, one could avert the suicide described in the preceding example |
| by having call_rcu() directly invoke its arguments only if it was called |
| from process context. However, this can fail in a similar manner. |
| |
| Suppose that an RCU-based algorithm again scans a linked list containing |
| elements A, B, and C in process contexts, but that it invokes a function |
| on each element as it is scanned. Suppose further that this function |
| deletes element B from the list, then passes it to call_rcu() for deferred |
| freeing. This may be a bit unconventional, but it is perfectly legal |
| RCU usage, since call_rcu() must wait for a grace period to elapse. |
| Therefore, in this case, allowing call_rcu() to immediately invoke |
| its arguments would cause it to fail to make the fundamental guarantee |
| underlying RCU, namely that call_rcu() defers invoking its arguments until |
| all RCU read-side critical sections currently executing have completed. |
| |
| Quick Quiz: why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in |
| this case? |
| |
| |
| Summary |
| |
| Permitting call_rcu() to immediately invoke its arguments or permitting |
| synchronize_rcu() to immediately return breaks RCU, even on a UP system. |
| So do not do it! Even on a UP system, the RCU infrastructure -must- |
| respect grace periods. |
| |
| |
| Answer to Quick Quiz |
| |
| The calling function is scanning an RCU-protected linked list, and |
| is therefore within an RCU read-side critical section. Therefore, |
| the called function has been invoked within an RCU read-side critical |
| section, and is not permitted to block. |