diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 419 |
1 files changed, 419 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5c8d7496 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt @@ -0,0 +1,419 @@ +Review Checklist for RCU Patches + + +This document contains a checklist for producing and reviewing patches +that make use of RCU. Violating any of the rules listed below will +result in the same sorts of problems that leaving out a locking primitive +would cause. This list is based on experiences reviewing such patches +over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! + +0. Is RCU being applied to a read-mostly situation? If the data + structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then you + should strongly consider some other approach, unless detailed + performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless the right + tool for the job. Yes, RCU does reduce read-side overhead by + increasing write-side overhead, which is exactly why normal uses + of RCU will do much more reading than updating. + + Another exception is where performance is not an issue, and RCU + provides a simpler implementation. An example of this situation + is the dynamic NMI code in the Linux 2.6 kernel, at least on + architectures where NMIs are rare. + + Yet another exception is where the low real-time latency of RCU's + read-side primitives is critically important. + +1. Does the update code have proper mutual exclusion? + + RCU does allow -readers- to run (almost) naked, but -writers- must + still use some sort of mutual exclusion, such as: + + a. locking, + b. atomic operations, or + c. restricting updates to a single task. + + If you choose #b, be prepared to describe how you have handled + memory barriers on weakly ordered machines (pretty much all of + them -- even x86 allows later loads to be reordered to precede + earlier stores), and be prepared to explain why this added + complexity is worthwhile. If you choose #c, be prepared to + explain how this single task does not become a major bottleneck on + big multiprocessor machines (for example, if the task is updating + information relating to itself that other tasks can read, there + by definition can be no bottleneck). + +2. Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of + rcu_read_lock() and friends? These primitives are needed + to prevent grace periods from ending prematurely, which + could result in data being unceremoniously freed out from + under your read-side code, which can greatly increase the + actuarial risk of your kernel. + + As a rough rule of thumb, any dereference of an RCU-protected + pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(), + rcu_read_lock_sched(), or by the appropriate update-side lock. + Disabling of preemption can serve as rcu_read_lock_sched(), but + is less readable. + +3. Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses? + + The whole point of RCU is to permit readers to run without + any locks or atomic operations. This means that readers will + be running while updates are in progress. There are a number + of ways to handle this concurrency, depending on the situation: + + a. Use the RCU variants of the list and hlist update + primitives to add, remove, and replace elements on + an RCU-protected list. Alternatively, use the other + RCU-protected data structures that have been added to + the Linux kernel. + + This is almost always the best approach. + + b. Proceed as in (a) above, but also maintain per-element + locks (that are acquired by both readers and writers) + that guard per-element state. Of course, fields that + the readers refrain from accessing can be guarded by + some other lock acquired only by updaters, if desired. + + This works quite well, also. + + c. Make updates appear atomic to readers. For example, + pointer updates to properly aligned fields will + appear atomic, as will individual atomic primitives. + Sequences of perations performed under a lock will -not- + appear to be atomic to RCU readers, nor will sequences + of multiple atomic primitives. + + This can work, but is starting to get a bit tricky. + + d. Carefully order the updates and the reads so that + readers see valid data at all phases of the update. + This is often more difficult than it sounds, especially + given modern CPUs' tendency to reorder memory references. + One must usually liberally sprinkle memory barriers + (smp_wmb(), smp_rmb(), smp_mb()) through the code, + making it difficult to understand and to test. + + It is usually better to group the changing data into + a separate structure, so that the change may be made + to appear atomic by updating a pointer to reference + a new structure containing updated values. + +4. Weakly ordered CPUs pose special challenges. Almost all CPUs + are weakly ordered -- even x86 CPUs allow later loads to be + reordered to precede earlier stores. RCU code must take all of + the following measures to prevent memory-corruption problems: + + a. Readers must maintain proper ordering of their memory + accesses. The rcu_dereference() primitive ensures that + the CPU picks up the pointer before it picks up the data + that the pointer points to. This really is necessary + on Alpha CPUs. If you don't believe me, see: + + http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/wiz_2637.html + + The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent + documentation aid, letting the person reading the code + know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU. + Please note that compilers can also reorder code, and + they are becoming increasingly aggressive about doing + just that. The rcu_dereference() primitive therefore + also prevents destructive compiler optimizations. + + The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the + various "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such + as the list_for_each_entry_rcu(). Note that it is + perfectly legal (if redundant) for update-side code to + use rcu_dereference() and the "_rcu()" list-traversal + primitives. This is particularly useful in code that + is common to readers and updaters. However, lockdep + will complain if you access rcu_dereference() outside + of an RCU read-side critical section. See lockdep.txt + to learn what to do about this. + + Of course, neither rcu_dereference() nor the "_rcu()" + list-traversal primitives can substitute for a good + concurrency design coordinating among multiple updaters. + + b. If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu() + and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order + to prevent weakly ordered machines from misordering + structure initialization and pointer planting. + Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used, the + hlist_add_head_rcu() primitive is required. + + c. If the list macros are being used, the list_del_rcu() + primitive must be used to keep list_del()'s pointer + poisoning from inflicting toxic effects on concurrent + readers. Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used, + the hlist_del_rcu() primitive is required. + + The list_replace_rcu() and hlist_replace_rcu() primitives + may be used to replace an old structure with a new one + in their respective types of RCU-protected lists. + + d. Rules similar to (4b) and (4c) apply to the "hlist_nulls" + type of RCU-protected linked lists. + + e. Updates must ensure that initialization of a given + structure happens before pointers to that structure are + publicized. Use the rcu_assign_pointer() primitive + when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can + be traversed by an RCU read-side critical section. + +5. If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh() or + call_rcu_sched(), is used, the callback function must be + written to be called from softirq context. In particular, + it cannot block. + +6. Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from + any sort of irq context. The same rule applies for + synchronize_rcu_bh(), synchronize_sched(), synchronize_srcu(), + synchronize_rcu_expedited(), synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(), + synchronize_sched_expedite(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited(). + + The expedited forms of these primitives have the same semantics + as the non-expedited forms, but expediting is both expensive + and unfriendly to real-time workloads. Use of the expedited + primitives should be restricted to rare configuration-change + operations that would not normally be undertaken while a real-time + workload is running. + + In particular, if you find yourself invoking one of the expedited + primitives repeatedly in a loop, please do everyone a favor: + Restructure your code so that it batches the updates, allowing + a single non-expedited primitive to cover the entire batch. + This will very likely be faster than the loop containing the + expedited primitive, and will be much much easier on the rest + of the system, especially to real-time workloads running on + the rest of the system. + + In addition, it is illegal to call the expedited forms from + a CPU-hotplug notifier, or while holding a lock that is acquired + by a CPU-hotplug notifier. Failing to observe this restriction + will result in deadlock. + +7. If the updater uses call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu(), then the + corresponding readers must use rcu_read_lock() and + rcu_read_unlock(). If the updater uses call_rcu_bh() or + synchronize_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must + use rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(). If the + updater uses call_rcu_sched() or synchronize_sched(), then + the corresponding readers must disable preemption, possibly + by calling rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched(). + If the updater uses synchronize_srcu(), the the corresponding + readers must use srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), + and with the same srcu_struct. The rules for the expedited + primitives are the same as for their non-expedited counterparts. + Mixing things up will result in confusion and broken kernels. + + One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() + may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh() + in cases where local bottom halves are already known to be + disabled, for example, in irq or softirq context. Commenting + such cases is a must, of course! And the jury is still out on + whether the increased speed is worth it. + +8. Although synchronize_rcu() is slower than is call_rcu(), it + usually results in simpler code. So, unless update performance + is critically important or the updaters cannot block, + synchronize_rcu() should be used in preference to call_rcu(). + + An especially important property of the synchronize_rcu() + primitive is that it automatically self-limits: if grace periods + are delayed for whatever reason, then the synchronize_rcu() + primitive will correspondingly delay updates. In contrast, + code using call_rcu() should explicitly limit update rate in + cases where grace periods are delayed, as failing to do so can + result in excessive realtime latencies or even OOM conditions. + + Ways of gaining this self-limiting property when using call_rcu() + include: + + a. Keeping a count of the number of data-structure elements + used by the RCU-protected data structure, including + those waiting for a grace period to elapse. Enforce a + limit on this number, stalling updates as needed to allow + previously deferred frees to complete. Alternatively, + limit only the number awaiting deferred free rather than + the total number of elements. + + One way to stall the updates is to acquire the update-side + mutex. (Don't try this with a spinlock -- other CPUs + spinning on the lock could prevent the grace period + from ever ending.) Another way to stall the updates + is for the updates to use a wrapper function around + the memory allocator, so that this wrapper function + simulates OOM when there is too much memory awaiting an + RCU grace period. There are of course many other + variations on this theme. + + b. Limiting update rate. For example, if updates occur only + once per hour, then no explicit rate limiting is required, + unless your system is already badly broken. The dcache + subsystem takes this approach -- updates are guarded + by a global lock, limiting their rate. + + c. Trusted update -- if updates can only be done manually by + superuser or some other trusted user, then it might not + be necessary to automatically limit them. The theory + here is that superuser already has lots of ways to crash + the machine. + + d. Use call_rcu_bh() rather than call_rcu(), in order to take + advantage of call_rcu_bh()'s faster grace periods. + + e. Periodically invoke synchronize_rcu(), permitting a limited + number of updates per grace period. + + The same cautions apply to call_rcu_bh() and call_rcu_sched(). + +9. All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include + rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(), + list_for_each_continue_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(), + must be either within an RCU read-side critical section or + must be protected by appropriate update-side locks. RCU + read-side critical sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock() + and rcu_read_unlock(), or by similar primitives such as + rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(), in which case + the matching rcu_dereference() primitive must be used in order + to keep lockdep happy, in this case, rcu_dereference_bh(). + + The reason that it is permissible to use RCU list-traversal + primitives when the update-side lock is held is that doing so + can be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common code is + shared between readers and updaters. Additional primitives + are provided for this case, as discussed in lockdep.txt. + +10. Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section, + and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must- + use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros. Failing to do so + will break Alpha, cause aggressive compilers to generate bad code, + and confuse people trying to read your code. + +11. Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until + all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side + critical sections complete. It does -not- necessarily guarantee + that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable() + code, or idle loops will complete. Therefore, if you do not have + rcu_read_lock()-protected read-side critical sections, do -not- + use synchronize_rcu(). + + Similarly, disabling preemption is not an acceptable substitute + for rcu_read_lock(). Code that attempts to use preemption + disabling where it should be using rcu_read_lock() will break + in real-time kernel builds. + + If you want to wait for interrupt handlers, NMI handlers, and + code under the influence of preempt_disable(), you instead + need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched(). + +12. Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere + with softirq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_irqsave(), + spin_lock_bh(), etc. Failing to disable irq on a given + acquisition of that lock will result in deadlock as soon as + the RCU softirq handler happens to run your RCU callback while + interrupting that acquisition's critical section. + +13. RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel. In many cases, + the callback code simply wrappers around kfree(), so that this + is not an issue (or, more accurately, to the extent that it is + an issue, the memory-allocator locking handles it). However, + if the callbacks do manipulate a shared data structure, they + must use whatever locking or other synchronization is required + to safely access and/or modify that data structure. + + RCU callbacks are -usually- executed on the same CPU that executed + the corresponding call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(), or call_rcu_sched(), + but are by -no- means guaranteed to be. For example, if a given + CPU goes offline while having an RCU callback pending, then that + RCU callback will execute on some surviving CPU. (If this was + not the case, a self-spawning RCU callback would prevent the + victim CPU from ever going offline.) + +14. SRCU (srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(), srcu_dereference(), + synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited()) may only + be invoked from process context. Unlike other forms of RCU, it + -is- permissible to block in an SRCU read-side critical section + (demarked by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()), hence the + "SRCU": "sleepable RCU". Please note that if you don't need + to sleep in read-side critical sections, you should be using + RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU is almost always faster and + easier to use than is SRCU. + + If you need to enter your read-side critical section in a + hardirq or exception handler, and then exit that same read-side + critical section in the task that was interrupted, then you need + to srcu_read_lock_raw() and srcu_read_unlock_raw(), which avoid + the lockdep checking that would otherwise this practice illegal. + + Also unlike other forms of RCU, explicit initialization + and cleanup is required via init_srcu_struct() and + cleanup_srcu_struct(). These are passed a "struct srcu_struct" + that defines the scope of a given SRCU domain. Once initialized, + the srcu_struct is passed to srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock() + synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited(). A given + synchronize_srcu() waits only for SRCU read-side critical + sections governed by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() + calls that have been passed the same srcu_struct. This property + is what makes sleeping read-side critical sections tolerable -- + a given subsystem delays only its own updates, not those of other + subsystems using SRCU. Therefore, SRCU is less prone to OOM the + system than RCU would be if RCU's read-side critical sections + were permitted to sleep. + + The ability to sleep in read-side critical sections does not + come for free. First, corresponding srcu_read_lock() and + srcu_read_unlock() calls must be passed the same srcu_struct. + Second, grace-period-detection overhead is amortized only + over those updates sharing a given srcu_struct, rather than + being globally amortized as they are for other forms of RCU. + Therefore, SRCU should be used in preference to rw_semaphore + only in extremely read-intensive situations, or in situations + requiring SRCU's read-side deadlock immunity or low read-side + realtime latency. + + Note that, rcu_assign_pointer() relates to SRCU just as they do + to other forms of RCU. + +15. The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends + is to wait until all pre-existing readers have finished before + carrying out some otherwise-destructive operation. It is + therefore critically important to -first- remove any path + that readers can follow that could be affected by the + destructive operation, and -only- -then- invoke call_rcu(), + synchronize_rcu(), or friends. + + Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers, it + is the caller's responsibility to guarantee that any subsequent + readers will execute safely. + +16. The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- necessarily contain + memory barriers. You should therefore plan for the CPU + and the compiler to freely reorder code into and out of RCU + read-side critical sections. It is the responsibility of the + RCU update-side primitives to deal with this. + +17. Use CONFIG_PROVE_RCU, CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD, and + the __rcu sparse checks to validate your RCU code. These + can help find problems as follows: + + CONFIG_PROVE_RCU: check that accesses to RCU-protected data + structures are carried out under the proper RCU + read-side critical section, while holding the right + combination of locks, or whatever other conditions + are appropriate. + + CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD: check that you don't pass the + same object to call_rcu() (or friends) before an RCU + grace period has elapsed since the last time that you + passed that same object to call_rcu() (or friends). + + __rcu sparse checks: tag the pointer to the RCU-protected data + structure with __rcu, and sparse will warn you if you + access that pointer without the services of one of the + variants of rcu_dereference(). + + These debugging aids can help you find problems that are + otherwise extremely difficult to spot. |