From 274529ba9bda86c91c2c06da3a641aaf617dd30f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:46:04 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 01/56] rcu: Consolidate dumping of ftrace buffer This commit consolidates a couple definitions and several calls for single-shot ftrace-buffer dumping. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- include/linux/rcupdate.h | 13 +++++++++++++ kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 17 +++-------------- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++-- 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h index 2657aff2725b..45de591657a6 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h @@ -1144,4 +1144,17 @@ static inline void rcu_sysidle_force_exit(void) #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_SYSIDLE */ +/* + * Dump the ftrace buffer, but only one time per callsite per boot. + */ +#define rcu_ftrace_dump(oops_dump_mode) \ +do { \ + static atomic_t ___rfd_beenhere = ATOMIC_INIT(0); \ + \ + if (!atomic_read(&___rfd_beenhere) && \ + !atomic_xchg(&___rfd_beenhere, 1)) \ + ftrace_dump(oops_dump_mode); \ +} while (0) + + #endif /* __LINUX_RCUPDATE_H */ diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c index 250ea67c1615..463867c43221 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c @@ -1082,17 +1082,6 @@ rcu_torture_fakewriter(void *arg) return 0; } -static void rcutorture_trace_dump(void) -{ - static atomic_t beenhere = ATOMIC_INIT(0); - - if (atomic_read(&beenhere)) - return; - if (atomic_xchg(&beenhere, 1) != 0) - return; - ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); -} - /* * RCU torture reader from timer handler. Dereferences rcu_torture_current, * incrementing the corresponding element of the pipeline array. The @@ -1142,7 +1131,7 @@ static void rcu_torture_timer(unsigned long unused) if (pipe_count > 1) { do_trace_rcu_torture_read(cur_ops->name, &p->rtort_rcu, ts, started, completed); - rcutorture_trace_dump(); + rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); } __this_cpu_inc(rcu_torture_count[pipe_count]); completed = completed - started; @@ -1215,7 +1204,7 @@ rcu_torture_reader(void *arg) if (pipe_count > 1) { do_trace_rcu_torture_read(cur_ops->name, &p->rtort_rcu, ts, started, completed); - rcutorture_trace_dump(); + rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); } __this_cpu_inc(rcu_torture_count[pipe_count]); completed = completed - started; @@ -1333,7 +1322,7 @@ rcu_torture_stats_print(void) rcu_torture_writer_state, gpnum, completed, flags); show_rcu_gp_kthreads(); - rcutorture_trace_dump(); + rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); } rtcv_snap = rcu_torture_current_version; } diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 9a535a86e732..531a328076bd 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -637,7 +637,7 @@ static void rcu_eqs_enter_common(long long oldval, bool user) idle_task(smp_processor_id()); trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("Error on entry: not idle task"), oldval, 0); - ftrace_dump(DUMP_ORIG); + rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ORIG); WARN_ONCE(1, "Current pid: %d comm: %s / Idle pid: %d comm: %s", current->pid, current->comm, idle->pid, idle->comm); /* must be idle task! */ @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ static void rcu_eqs_exit_common(long long oldval, int user) trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("Error on exit: not idle task"), oldval, rdtp->dynticks_nesting); - ftrace_dump(DUMP_ORIG); + rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ORIG); WARN_ONCE(1, "Current pid: %d comm: %s / Idle pid: %d comm: %s", current->pid, current->comm, idle->pid, idle->comm); /* must be idle task! */ From 70946a44deec299ef54c0ec933e8d82ddd4bcc6a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yao Dongdong Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:02:14 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 02/56] documentation: Make sample code and documentation consistent In the chapter 'analogy with reader-writer locking', the sample code uses spinlock_t in reader-writer case. Just correct it so that we can read the document easily. Signed-off-by: Yao Dongdong Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 22 +++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt index dc49c6712b17..111770ffa10e 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt @@ -681,22 +681,30 @@ Although RCU can be used in many different ways, a very common use of RCU is analogous to reader-writer locking. The following unified diff shows how closely related RCU and reader-writer locking can be. + @@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ struct el { + int data; + /* Other data fields */ + }; + -rwlock_t listmutex; + +spinlock_t listmutex; + struct el head; + @@ -13,15 +14,15 @@ struct list_head *lp; struct el *p; - - read_lock(); + - read_lock(&listmutex); - list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { + rcu_read_lock(); + list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, head, lp) { if (p->key == key) { *result = p->data; - - read_unlock(); + - read_unlock(&listmutex); + rcu_read_unlock(); return 1; } } - - read_unlock(); + - read_unlock(&listmutex); + rcu_read_unlock(); return 0; } @@ -732,7 +740,7 @@ Or, for those who prefer a side-by-side listing: 5 int data; 5 int data; 6 /* Other data fields */ 6 /* Other data fields */ 7 }; 7 }; - 8 spinlock_t listmutex; 8 spinlock_t listmutex; + 8 rwlock_t listmutex; 8 spinlock_t listmutex; 9 struct el head; 9 struct el head; 1 int search(long key, int *result) 1 int search(long key, int *result) @@ -740,15 +748,15 @@ Or, for those who prefer a side-by-side listing: 3 struct list_head *lp; 3 struct list_head *lp; 4 struct el *p; 4 struct el *p; 5 5 - 6 read_lock(); 6 rcu_read_lock(); + 6 read_lock(&listmutex); 6 rcu_read_lock(); 7 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 7 list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, head, lp) { 8 if (p->key == key) { 8 if (p->key == key) { 9 *result = p->data; 9 *result = p->data; -10 read_unlock(); 10 rcu_read_unlock(); +10 read_unlock(&listmutex); 10 rcu_read_unlock(); 11 return 1; 11 return 1; 12 } 12 } 13 } 13 } -14 read_unlock(); 14 rcu_read_unlock(); +14 read_unlock(&listmutex); 14 rcu_read_unlock(); 15 return 0; 15 return 0; 16 } 16 } From 41abcf321d447b9987f6b7d1a9bb65831e786daf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:18:22 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 03/56] documentation: Add real-time requirements from CPU-bound workloads This commit records RCU's responsibility to avoid degrading latencies of CPUs running tight loops within properly configured workloads, both in kernel and in userspace. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 10 +++++++++- .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index a725f9900ec8..3004baa71bcc 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ - + @@ -2170,6 +2170,14 @@ up to and including systems with 4096 CPUs. This real-time requirement motivated the grace-period kthread, which also simplified handling of a number of race conditions. +

+RCU must avoid degrading real-time response for CPU-bound threads, whether +executing in usermode (which is one use case for +CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y) or in the kernel. +That said, CPU-bound loops in the kernel must execute +cond_resched_rcu_qs() at least once per few tens of milliseconds +in order to avoid receiving an IPI from RCU. +

Finally, RCU's status as a synchronization primitive means that any RCU failure can result in arbitrary memory corruption that can be diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx index 3a97ba490c42..61caffc86823 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx @@ -2337,6 +2337,14 @@ up to and including systems with 4096 CPUs. This real-time requirement motivated the grace-period kthread, which also simplified handling of a number of race conditions. +

+RCU must avoid degrading real-time response for CPU-bound threads, whether +executing in usermode (which is one use case for +CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y) or in the kernel. +That said, CPU-bound loops in the kernel must execute +cond_resched_rcu_qs() at least once per few tens of milliseconds +in order to avoid receiving an IPI from RCU. +

Finally, RCU's status as a synchronization primitive means that any RCU failure can result in arbitrary memory corruption that can be From f43b62542eb61a52d97d6b82a786a912fa5e6c51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:12:43 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 04/56] documentation: Add synchronize_rcu_mult() to the requirements Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 92 +++++++++++++++++++ .../Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 82 +++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 174 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index 3004baa71bcc..59acd82e67d4 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -2231,6 +2231,8 @@ described in a separate section.

  • Sched Flavor
  • Sleepable RCU
  • Tasks RCU +
  • + Waiting for Multiple Grace Periods

    Bottom-Half Flavor

    @@ -2480,6 +2482,81 @@ The tasks-RCU API is quite compact, consisting only of synchronize_rcu_tasks(), and rcu_barrier_tasks(). +

    +Waiting for Multiple Grace Periods

    + +

    +Perhaps you have an RCU protected data structure that is accessed from +RCU read-side critical sections, from softirq handlers, and from +hardware interrupt handlers. +That is three flavors of RCU, the normal flavor, the bottom-half flavor, +and the sched flavor. +How to wait for a compound grace period? + +

    +The best approach is usually to “just say no!” and +insert rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() +around each RCU read-side critical section, regardless of what +environment it happens to be in. +But suppose that some of the RCU read-side critical sections are +on extremely hot code paths, and that use of CONFIG_PREEMPT=n +is not a viable option, so that rcu_read_lock() and +rcu_read_unlock() are not free. +What then? + +

    +You could wait on all three grace periods in succession, as follows: + +

    +
    + 1 synchronize_rcu();
+ 2 synchronize_rcu_bh();
+ 3 synchronize_sched();
+
    +
    + +

    +This works, but triples the update-side latency penalty. +In cases where this is not acceptable, synchronize_rcu_mult() +may be used to wait on all three flavors of grace period concurrently: + +

    +
    + 1 synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh, call_rcu_sched);
+
    +
    + +

    +But what if it is necessary to also wait on SRCU? +This can be done as follows: + +

    +
    + 1 static void call_my_srcu(struct rcu_head *head,
+ 2        void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head))
+ 3 {
+ 4   call_srcu(&my_srcu, head, func);
+ 5 }
+ 6
+ 7 synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh, call_rcu_sched, call_my_srcu);
+
    +
    + +

    +If you needed to wait on multiple different flavors of SRCU +(but why???), you would need to create a wrapper function resembling +call_my_srcu() for each SRCU flavor. + +

    Quick Quiz 15: +But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need +the grace periods to be expedited? +
    Answer + +

    +Again, it is usually better to adjust the RCU read-side critical sections +to use a single flavor of RCU, but when this is not feasible, you can use +synchronize_rcu_mult(). +

    Possible Future Changes

    @@ -2901,5 +2978,20 @@ during scheduler initialization.

    Back to Quick Quiz 14. + +

    Quick Quiz 15: +But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need +the grace periods to be expedited? + + +

    Answer: +If you are using expedited grace periods, there should be less penalty +for waiting on them in succession. +But if that is nevertheless a problem, you can use workqueues or multiple +kthreads to wait on the various expedited grace periods concurrently. + + +

    Back to Quick Quiz 15. + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx index 61caffc86823..6ff4966672e2 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx @@ -2398,6 +2398,8 @@ described in a separate section.

  • Sched Flavor
  • Sleepable RCU
  • Tasks RCU +
  • + Waiting for Multiple Grace Periods

    Bottom-Half Flavor

    @@ -2647,6 +2649,86 @@ The tasks-RCU API is quite compact, consisting only of synchronize_rcu_tasks(), and rcu_barrier_tasks(). +

    +Waiting for Multiple Grace Periods

    + +

    +Perhaps you have an RCU protected data structure that is accessed from +RCU read-side critical sections, from softirq handlers, and from +hardware interrupt handlers. +That is three flavors of RCU, the normal flavor, the bottom-half flavor, +and the sched flavor. +How to wait for a compound grace period? + +

    +The best approach is usually to “just say no!” and +insert rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() +around each RCU read-side critical section, regardless of what +environment it happens to be in. +But suppose that some of the RCU read-side critical sections are +on extremely hot code paths, and that use of CONFIG_PREEMPT=n +is not a viable option, so that rcu_read_lock() and +rcu_read_unlock() are not free. +What then? + +

    +You could wait on all three grace periods in succession, as follows: + +

    +
    + 1 synchronize_rcu();
+ 2 synchronize_rcu_bh();
+ 3 synchronize_sched();
+
    +
    + +

    +This works, but triples the update-side latency penalty. +In cases where this is not acceptable, synchronize_rcu_mult() +may be used to wait on all three flavors of grace period concurrently: + +

    +
    + 1 synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh, call_rcu_sched);
+
    +
    + +

    +But what if it is necessary to also wait on SRCU? +This can be done as follows: + +

    +
    + 1 static void call_my_srcu(struct rcu_head *head,
+ 2        void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head))
+ 3 {
+ 4   call_srcu(&my_srcu, head, func);
+ 5 }
+ 6
+ 7 synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh, call_rcu_sched, call_my_srcu);
+
    +
    + +

    +If you needed to wait on multiple different flavors of SRCU +(but why???), you would need to create a wrapper function resembling +call_my_srcu() for each SRCU flavor. + +

    @@QQ@@ +But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need +the grace periods to be expedited? +

    @@QQA@@ +If you are using expedited grace periods, there should be less penalty +for waiting on them in succession. +But if that is nevertheless a problem, you can use workqueues or multiple +kthreads to wait on the various expedited grace periods concurrently. +

    @@QQE@@ + +

    +Again, it is usually better to adjust the RCU read-side critical sections +to use a single flavor of RCU, but when this is not feasible, you can use +synchronize_rcu_mult(). +

    Possible Future Changes

    From d8936c0b7e29510ce8f5c85ff5fcc592a938e860 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:29:47 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 05/56] documentation: Explain why rcu_read_lock() needs no barrier() This commit adds a Quick Quiz whose answer explains why the compiler code reordering enabled by CONFIG_PREEMPT=n's empty rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() functions does not hinder RCU's ability to figure out which RCU read-side critical sections have completed and not. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 130 ++++++++++++------ .../Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 28 ++++ 2 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index 59acd82e67d4..2a56031bfdd4 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -583,6 +583,17 @@ The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! Are all these memory barriers really required?
    Answer +

    Quick Quiz 7: +You claim that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() +generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. +This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive +RCU read-side critical sections. +Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section +is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical +sections are done? +Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? +
    Answer +

    Note that these memory-barrier requirements do not replace the fundamental RCU requirement that a grace period wait for all pre-existing readers. @@ -626,9 +637,9 @@ inconvenience can be avoided through use of the call_rcu() and kfree_rcu() API members described later in this document. -

    Quick Quiz 7: +

    Quick Quiz 8: But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    This guarantee allows lookup code to be shared between read-side @@ -714,9 +725,9 @@ to do significant reordering. This is by design: Any significant ordering constraints would slow down these fast-path APIs. -

    Quick Quiz 8: +

    Quick Quiz 9: Can't the compiler also reorder this code? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    Readers Do Not Exclude Updaters

    @@ -769,10 +780,10 @@ new readers can start immediately after synchronize_rcu() starts, and synchronize_rcu() is under no obligation to wait for these new readers. -

    Quick Quiz 9: +

    Quick Quiz 10: Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. Would the updater be able to rely on this? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    Grace Periods Don't Partition Read-Side Critical Sections

    @@ -969,11 +980,11 @@ grace period. As a result, an RCU read-side critical section cannot partition a pair of RCU grace periods. -

    Quick Quiz 10: +

    Quick Quiz 11: How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU read-side critical section, would be required to partition the RCU read-side critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    Disabling Preemption Does Not Block Grace Periods

    @@ -1127,9 +1138,9 @@ synchronization primitives be legal within RCU read-side critical sections, including spinlocks, sequence locks, atomic operations, reference counters, and memory barriers. -

    Quick Quiz 11: +

    Quick Quiz 12: What about sleeping locks? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    It often comes as a surprise that many algorithms do not require a @@ -1354,12 +1365,12 @@ write an RCU callback function that takes too long. Long-running operations should be relegated to separate threads or (in the Linux kernel) workqueues. -

    Quick Quiz 12: +

    Quick Quiz 13: Why does line 19 use rcu_access_pointer()? After all, call_rcu() on line 25 stores into the structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. Doesn't this mean that rcu_dereference() is required? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    However, all that remove_gp_cb() is doing is @@ -1406,14 +1417,14 @@ This was due to the fact that RCU was not heavily used within DYNIX/ptx, so the very few places that needed something like synchronize_rcu() simply open-coded it. -

    Quick Quiz 13: +

    Quick Quiz 14: Earlier it was claimed that call_rcu() and kfree_rcu() allowed updaters to avoid being blocked by readers. But how can that be correct, given that the invocation of the callback and the freeing of the memory (respectively) must still wait for a grace period to elapse? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    But what if the updater must wait for the completion of code to be @@ -1838,11 +1849,11 @@ kthreads to be spawned. Therefore, invoking synchronize_rcu() during scheduler initialization can result in deadlock. -

    Quick Quiz 14: +

    Quick Quiz 15: So what happens with synchronize_rcu() during scheduler initialization for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    I learned of these boot-time requirements as a result of a series of @@ -2547,10 +2558,10 @@ If you needed to wait on multiple different flavors of SRCU (but why???), you would need to create a wrapper function resembling call_my_srcu() for each SRCU flavor. -

    Quick Quiz 15: +

    Quick Quiz 16: But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need the grace periods to be expedited? -
    Answer +
    Answer

    Again, it is usually better to adjust the RCU read-side critical sections @@ -2827,6 +2838,39 @@ adhered to the as-if rule than it is to actually adhere to it!

    Quick Quiz 7: +You claim that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() +generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. +This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive +RCU read-side critical sections. +Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section +is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical +sections are done? +Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? + + +

    Answer: +In cases where rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() +generate absolutely no code, RCU infers quiescent states only at +special locations, for example, within the scheduler. +Because calls to schedule() had better prevent calling-code +accesses to shared variables from being rearranged across the call to +schedule(), if RCU detects the end of a given RCU read-side +critical section, it will necessarily detect the end of all prior +RCU read-side critical sections, no matter how aggressively the +compiler scrambles the code. + +

    +Again, this all assumes that the compiler cannot scramble code across +calls to the scheduler, out of interrupt handlers, into the idle loop, +into user-mode code, and so on. +But if your kernel build allows that sort of scrambling, you have broken +far more than just RCU! + + +

    Back to Quick Quiz 7. + + +

    Quick Quiz 8: But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? @@ -2835,10 +2879,10 @@ It doesn't, just like normal RCU updates, which also do not exclude RCU readers. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 7. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 8. - -

    Quick Quiz 8: + +

    Quick Quiz 9: Can't the compiler also reorder this code? @@ -2848,10 +2892,10 @@ No, the volatile casts in READ_ONCE() and this particular case. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 8. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 9. - -

    Quick Quiz 9: + +

    Quick Quiz 10: Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. Would the updater be able to rely on this? @@ -2866,10 +2910,10 @@ Therefore, the code following in any case. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 9. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 10. - -

    Quick Quiz 10: + +

    Quick Quiz 11: How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU read-side critical section, would be required to partition the RCU read-side critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? @@ -2883,10 +2927,10 @@ Therefore, even in practice, RCU users must abide by the theoretical rather than the practical answer. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 10. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 11. - -

    Quick Quiz 11: + +

    Quick Quiz 12: What about sleeping locks? @@ -2914,10 +2958,10 @@ the mutex was not immediately available. Either way, mutex_trylock() returns immediately without sleeping. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 11. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 12. - -

    Quick Quiz 12: + +

    Quick Quiz 13: Why does line 19 use rcu_access_pointer()? After all, call_rcu() on line 25 stores into the structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. @@ -2933,10 +2977,10 @@ is released on line 25, which in turn means that rcu_access_pointer() suffices. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 12. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 13. - -

    Quick Quiz 13: + +

    Quick Quiz 14: Earlier it was claimed that call_rcu() and kfree_rcu() allowed updaters to avoid being blocked by readers. @@ -2957,10 +3001,10 @@ next update as soon as it has invoked call_rcu() or grace period. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 13. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 14. - -

    Quick Quiz 14: + +

    Quick Quiz 15: So what happens with synchronize_rcu() during scheduler initialization for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels? @@ -2976,10 +3020,10 @@ so it is still necessary to avoid invoking synchronize_rcu() during scheduler initialization. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 14. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 15. - -

    Quick Quiz 15: + +

    Quick Quiz 16: But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need the grace periods to be expedited? @@ -2991,7 +3035,7 @@ But if that is nevertheless a problem, you can use workqueues or multiple kthreads to wait on the various expedited grace periods concurrently. -

    Back to Quick Quiz 15. +

    Back to Quick Quiz 16. diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx index 6ff4966672e2..98da30ca84c4 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx @@ -682,6 +682,34 @@ That said, it is much easier to fool yourself into believing that you have adhered to the as-if rule than it is to actually adhere to it!

    @@QQE@@ +

    @@QQ@@ +You claim that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() +generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. +This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive +RCU read-side critical sections. +Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section +is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical +sections are done? +Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? +

    @@QQA@@ +In cases where rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() +generate absolutely no code, RCU infers quiescent states only at +special locations, for example, within the scheduler. +Because calls to schedule() had better prevent calling-code +accesses to shared variables from being rearranged across the call to +schedule(), if RCU detects the end of a given RCU read-side +critical section, it will necessarily detect the end of all prior +RCU read-side critical sections, no matter how aggressively the +compiler scrambles the code. + +

    +Again, this all assumes that the compiler cannot scramble code across +calls to the scheduler, out of interrupt handlers, into the idle loop, +into user-mode code, and so on. +But if your kernel build allows that sort of scrambling, you have broken +far more than just RCU! +

    @@QQE@@ +

    Note that these memory-barrier requirements do not replace the fundamental RCU requirement that a grace period wait for all pre-existing readers. From 514f1eb5f44520d5255b927ad5aabc00db5bc73d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:52:35 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 06/56] documentation: Document illegality of call_rcu() from offline CPUs There is already a blanket statement about no member of RCU's API being legal from an offline CPU, but add an explicit note where it states that it is illegal to invoke call_rcu() from an NMI handler. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 3 ++- Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index 2a56031bfdd4..01e12b86e81f 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -1354,7 +1354,8 @@ situations where neither synchronize_rcu() nor synchronize_rcu_expedited() would be legal, including within preempt-disable code, local_bh_disable() code, interrupt-disable code, and interrupt handlers. -However, even call_rcu() is illegal within NMI handlers. +However, even call_rcu() is illegal within NMI handlers +and from offline CPUs. The callback function (remove_gp_cb() in this case) will be executed within softirq (software interrupt) environment within the Linux kernel, diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx index 98da30ca84c4..3355f1f9384c 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx @@ -1513,7 +1513,8 @@ situations where neither synchronize_rcu() nor synchronize_rcu_expedited() would be legal, including within preempt-disable code, local_bh_disable() code, interrupt-disable code, and interrupt handlers. -However, even call_rcu() is illegal within NMI handlers. +However, even call_rcu() is illegal within NMI handlers +and from offline CPUs. The callback function (remove_gp_cb() in this case) will be executed within softirq (software interrupt) environment within the Linux kernel, From 11a65df5732167519937eabf16a870f5f8bde5ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:03:36 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 07/56] documentation: Remove unnecessary images from requirements This commit removes a cutesy cartoon and also a diagram that can just as easily be represented by text. Reported-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../Requirements/2013-08-is-it-dead.png | Bin 100825 -> 0 bytes .../Design/Requirements/RCUApplicability.svg | 237 ------------------ .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 28 ++- .../Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 28 ++- 4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 253 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/2013-08-is-it-dead.png delete mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/RCUApplicability.svg diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/2013-08-is-it-dead.png b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/2013-08-is-it-dead.png deleted file mode 100644 index 7496a55e4e7b41becdb658a2bd34765fbe80013f..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 GIT binary patch literal 0 HcmV?d00001 literal 100825 zcmaI8c|2C@8#TTWl}t}j$kbCx3K5Zr>Mlnb z5(*hAnadoRertEW@8|b<|9Ly7Pv__v_P+1yzOHqxwXS{jsE!6ZD?cki5bOsvX~zhH z$%G&n9aga5CvPs*`Qi@-w__UniR||R1Na{nvqKs*Vu}1Gu{<>jKUwLlY3PQxx01gZ z_KU@N;fKrJ4<1%q{*{%ohGTi>PcaUH5FrlI_UU=G4SzlFclgiJ^3m2e#`{@TYrXrd zCi=iA#kMd-Ho7gN&_g6+I_)pN#K@6M>l2Up)zT$SjzqR}Zcwik%8!cc`13nLA@xt) z;Y}2aviOJ^|6<4YehF?)@3$qmsR%REXmrLzMZ$@gVkl;GX6c@+t=zSphv)bJVMfpx zLUzr_^H+HgTNv)K+<1A6LeceHcbcX*Z@^^D-pxaFh9-Gk)jW87jggU2l3w~TXIIyY zj~`2H(|EPhJ0*4F=FKd+y1F-S-@e`a`@JmDC(M!;MR+n6Hw;oJld-v{j|M;=Y*Vp&t^;)`4>H&9mSu-;;E+L`o zPpleVbae?YE-n_k53K&!)YN=%ikN0FSZTVEu5dCUBxIdAO|PJwFilGmQ>Oh;Bb;4a zB7c2-w#}if;6iHZmX5Dq4MmguZrr{dveW8)cYkBDLAj6I;=-SMcT;b44*y}&qa?0uX$B#F8s6KU)#$_Qq+fJJH z*2NT`{~iA~UzpxVywBfH!>^z?X8MNEq{|FkTefUjkni%_h(*~?YtZoVDIM-8InFQd zxSd$WC+M}E`DnbbA&vHG`KgMK(AZl<7W2`jx;m}BbHh6=JBnSzPGoRzJD{hUb?Pa{ z_t)2|udSC)6w|sH63#rTyzKx@Z}QHQWi&N)eKp-8M(5v+$;)>+v^^|aTAa(xJNtW- z#(eO;qQ?%4TCU>a;_jKT?`z+@dE>;8#%j7;#z%V-HHjK3VL}T^;G+)^uiHLhN1o_&r!djG7+yY6q|w++XnH&RSWWF0{!UqTRrs^+X%-PL z<5qhA(J#@J&R@{Q=>(yL5icD%RU$wU0dLEXx!qwTiYOpzzM@^S7-M(!r*_VIMun9k^b;GX;`5)!)%1!dxg*CH z=Kko{MQ^RP<>EPO5-^+c*PShMA5BkobPsl=-q6i$;#T&VXTjnpGIIH8Y8~sH$}TW1 z=OC);2_1YgEoeQ0hLv+Y;jv!MR&V>ITgEw3(_09;qx0?~Z72K(U)gd|r2Qz3Pmc4@ z4W|a1S9Ju7ii)27l5cs$VHT0#)f=Oq8@ROCSDFwI5D;?ps<-5j&cTEGnjRg_vuY5k zSQARQ^vBoZ~zhByHG~kb^Tu2CSMM(db zbPnDH(Xy&y|G8a+h=hbh>x86X{xXEo%lG&9Jh}H10Z9;h_B`t=ium*E>j57h#b2G} zalh-0i|qOMWv%ItPd#1R&;Q|xex8|{!KqVrzXPfN;?$~Ikf@8|{+@MReiQH3_*)Iy1a#RVPBo7lsd;eV ziqI*h<;$02F`A@ocJ7RpIJGu3sTli#bHjW{RnJ-q-D_Vx_46UT8K`*W_?z_evp7A*EWk(cFT9m%a73 z9<&afJsbHaqO9-hIM4d^aeagq5)gTQXb&GgBnTX`c&*Wph={Uc4~J4W%PZ|7Iswyigb zR|!ejM@U?ER}@T2N(wh##m?URUZ09PxP~+m?bNeP{_%eE*Wu4EE$963#Oeqe?+zj| zGV->JC9779I5SdVwD<{DK}C1^ojZn)P9|KwyliH6_AHL~=gL48Y(`Ii{|YB3r?=P( z%erW3qt-W3TXdf~p85Rc%Z3db7(9krf>KgM7iar~$$WTA^349DN4b#K$9_Hg{cWn% zq@h46Jw2UB^qhMju^JcS#c;(MeorI@H+OOp1?od!ve9_dj#;xytP+VNx8xOpKtUswo5?+6K zV%0M+a5Y}pH_777%_Dw7_jbFnWS)HdqTKgSV$;BfVi$Aw;m^|TJ(T?i4v!+HlYqrp6FHu;CTB`*A&DbQ$mMy8;O&JmSmi1bGeq}}3I7X~Q zI=(+7R4uYq>PN^qae~<8)H15vs(YLxmszn1c#cr7Ee@5-)R&LPmf{x(7+L}qKQgo)^(SZ=~~sO7Q1;hff? z!oGKR<<<}~jvWfgHlNnAl^aVDn-mp|_Abr4F^Cu&8|V8>*&aN6xcO0~`@qeXq{hm? zz~q*##J8V6AC;f8vDtbeLoc#HW$E;TrH|q`}*4YoeuTLc(2~QJ51Exm9uj#3O}l z#jnoD#N?*zgatj!!WpBJx`s$<8n8e~%eQS7Pwr0A!UjuzW_Mzr2l{2E7e9Mum$O?@ zk^k$jTg?v9!TT(K)JA^9s*a6~MV_q=zIy4>CBLa=eW3c8ms7rTBTt#>;k?q+dK*I1 z%q+@%6~o;bAcikdS9(qs@(_L=0O zMB?b^5}Fe~-yP20C@FdUDRNHZ&Q~1rA^mSuG=(}HZ{NzxMJO}Ox5msRBSoCGvAK$@ zkbEpf3yA;9n}Mvyk9&UnxZK}w-BIds$oI_G&DGa=hKGl_)~^q{eVaF`-qp?R0FAb6 z|AD1vo!25FG&D6=;61vy2B0b)z%bdW+b5aIjU&iB(An9Uo10tp=y06&`}GtG1EJtMy&ZKyx5)lWjpNhg`8 z&LZ>;ik;6E{kvCp_kwA`gy9$KM!TwBMI7@zq*uA+QE<*sYYw?+yn8&i)0P1r7@!V6 z65^WJLm!;-30blE@ZHP80W&>$aw}G?YO>|x8P<*c>O>1|P1VpL0e*Az zJiI_G?;EFo$ZBVN?acf-YNf$$ZDV88HvVLlgYEJygVSj>o3>1()$2$2pY#y@4_@xq z5IntG>Qd|8U$J|tbH|FidxnRz95l4FSP?FT4l?!rqFE+j3x6W&+LAVY`vgYu8>OtQ&LBR%=hpPc*2sxvgKnUe@;03c`8p8%iCms<~ON z-W$a>e3AFYEfrQS3PqWH*fu^S{`TLmeAU@66E=CF!DKoR%(hQYPcIvbTy?Dap3k$p zJt8k`Ri)>3Zf%${JHsAR75Fqe{kg+v_w$*`r8yO%>bl^b9rmAdm0BD0>h(=cMS?j5 zLqkGVh=nEvJ*p{OR5oHlO_xO=x8|7CWEnmgpDNCjFbRI@y>}4p_)PaDPJ%$={L(I` zoQ0Eh(EI>+kDvqQn`8Zpy~e22jT`gM|28gg>Jqwo_3DnDJF9POI6%y|=G*X=T_p>u zYf_b`Tvx`4Z44slgX^ctq@|^gW$0~X5J6vRbpG4nyRwm}=@iQ2xyeGi)^pFYuqk#E zTSP^#hG^m)%ya;iGjWc?pYs@10ag!7_BHF9AeRF*Sm%8C@?|9f_Y(FUwGiX{on0)4$=W1bL zC+>{XXU_EE9=}MYYD5UN$$WZ#WjPz~4I6lSh2&Q7bJ=`1FJ3x&GuMo%3bxZ{!UCEmY(A0b#<>eN-y zCc|czcHK86So3(qcyE3E72$x}-`(CeG#nu`N7@Q^O4Pr9uY)zScooXCT2SzQFRx=) z;8OY8ismcH$;ofys*oVx-O?7lZqNB&(SQi`h@Zn8iNn8tFMYO5+gA^;|IGQw;lnW~s}`j#kDz=i{kB1oo*qV51N`LzVWaUm6JOG zmQ3tak$oiEsDrk)gXVn)H8pPpE-mPz`cYf6&(yop`*3HPXgjOdk-NxqZS=%ZG$2}t zMN5ztuZmazL&nkJ)rInGi~n1SPfRORQuZ39ZxJEiqRjH_?v^BKGVSW>&-s>z^0F_K zmn-jb>YRT&_*hF*^FwL;7AzVXZEBqc(tp~ir;^8x9gDZVVe`KqC)pbq8JPi|pb(75LB!BYXrT_nb{=Z(xvzP4r0vG)v+jFoG z>z+Dw{bbk-$ZO~Pt7G@ti~q4Av%E@PJBoa-qhT&CJszMfw z1RIhUK$aRqdEw7$NBnGSSD!$E%rD9yoBo zW#FSIQ3dV^%!Fk;+cL^Nd`G9 zo#u~h-x_~QO!wlJ>YaLA4a;Nh7`}c-RlG0RIx*<3NH)PD2FuPeZ(ccD?w@b(TmqTQ zQ#%^ddh}pP-|ycM`X>H7kBtgn6gjlBc1+)ii|bSLyRYoKcGcSLRT(ET!yWbA-Q8(% zyBtP89+G+v0EI){R*gTeU%w8Da5iOIxlm(cV@P;7O;0a++R55lOy{1$S{P-Afvgz}S%nCk}V*mP0lq_|yaE%2v$3LYX*EnT-mRndj0v&x1YSYZz z?@AXGh+t~Iwr;c`b)1PFR9mbT`7dz9R9@&?{0MA4>20$CeLJ^S?Dnft6*EbyBhPvQ zr2UlljI=+k`SB*IvBa&9aUs4|(hsaGAL#8@3v+zudyp&GkfurMWV?h!*xNi1ovP>~ z8cRLwh$Fu8thwydp4vqI2|_srSmQ zG2$m)pb-SCV~{v~=Bt#Oo7?BlpGPgc)IoObu&m?$gl1B;a*K9Q4)DWde>Jbjf4~xog)hPa=RRmzBP;!STOY6zjSAALf@@RL z(OlnF^bprc*!#F_e!QOea6mVDC!ypWOreYw9iaNqfb5czlOylm4FzZNqN77#>(;Hg zMMdvr9*TvUeVXz_3WJ(pLZY$Uyu1rxVXHa==0<8*O6^*+&o0i-0+tAXtcr|}zuw(# z`tsGQ2j|}1HS|<<{`2e1Jw*>zz$J}i$5w+~6A%>a`S$H1_75}&O9|_-!Jt3M7mlSi z^?-yx>QF+z(*5h#b<|Lc5&uxtER(^-XLJN+%E6H)$}EJIr6Rg$pSww$>DjW#}fe08$38T(g;Mq|&p*>WnEi zq2Z2$B%Wa{`%Tm?F3k1X@GCec5;xFRgoS9@+GY@F*w(waxkVvy)&U)>(Jau`FsdTu z&}bF_UgMpIQ3$OOAHp3@nameI*>9zCWd zLg^#=u)HTv>I;UU_8dpEBO_ssE?T{vQx(DfvZ?7fvQO;DU-Y}ZKvE<@9? z`}e^W>Vj_=ceih9YU%|!a1%89)v&NI;sz+cu$-J6w5s*iZIw%lr{2DO`?9ms7}tNR zR|X8I_|Km|KLS%~tL$;^rn~>@_+l-L@JRtB25KutyXiONCZj@IQNU!h&w_hAR}kr- zm*!{t622h}^%_V3HtFO4$p3V%>4mb{pK)z_W49hx2N)=vczZ)9H3~GRZN1;vt98Av z)|to}9YLw;g;4aZr)LB4_Gzcjp_VMejUfACcf0+pMZOnRP%xm;DrUZ| z;@j=|aM|+Z>(A)@8EQR(Lbd_it}Aj-`q2j$TNqQC1`0e*WEtoZwMcUXy$m;Sh8G?n84UN<1`s6?!K&^7d^p2v9)lIfc3QT@`0mT}D)^?^Dfb zwd-M`&&O%p;3fDfBI8{`;N~%m`X|8Lj;OM*V7`Jkt zsbdXSgXR?gSJko(t@%G*06yJBbSMA zNBQFizTjJNfzTBhRedJ=$=x+9+U(K)Vc&Iu-ANKnU0o{e{x)p|=`9y;u0fL&lMuLQ zcwJaU66Zz6|F1g|Prd9JprHbX9aC<{zkU1m5SfHgb@P$!t`xs&(qbkJX%yMKtIR+7Ax@V2^DBt;DMGcFcAL#Phcb1jtR>=e0 ziX=PZTq#Eda(jIuvjp)2I3eF_%xt9WYk|$0H76v&*J^@LnhZ^P$dL9X!ksF9ede(# zRp#J`>VceA{2MpyvsYPJ5O=KL_LGfN@{y14oQ{RiGd+*%O+!thhhOI)tOad8x3w`6 zNYAELR<~?+v-8Um#4;8Zeh-GF;_FJEdi&f*J0~aI!I5ti6I+3f<`VMAn*lbHN}nll zq@;%nOCTNH!8&oRKHOi{pv4Y_y|*Qo#2niDqS3~ zp!l;PAp&8|NUYs%Kt~eimq-ObfQ~}?9 z<}Uh_xADsBr>Cb^u(7>$H4N^lcP74Pz0k+C6xBmHJpjJ5pjGO0aU$~*4fN&TQ1;b( zB)0SnJ!#l`0A=Zk;HZ4&0ttJ6zP}&W>xVP)8Z4Q#*~=9pa!^*Y&OBR7N;&A3T>v+= zCk)|X!3~r2&RSDp=%PKKk@~wTRdAQLM%)Lb!AAtItsttfyx<_J!CQ|(lQ9J~M@p6~ z?EKL-y9aMOpoOXLP6;kRIU+T}EjssVW&G0H&l+@Tq&#{=-LZoU?Un{U!L2Of8o%5N zoP0VMT#|XjW!JlQ;#lyW|J6b2CL}wJgEMh}%GnvX)bC^)P*anFN&sm3th<^QGEka}n)rgHJSw48T=$;%$v`N24zB>0^Xc)abp#iv z(hnbwZrZd-1m`AI=e~@QG4ktZ-L@Q3+9y#q*);O;U7eZnQUZd+34I0dk_YBXJ8l>I z_nL^n;R>=1MHPk9;5j%Xw}K_y@&%;TF{xFnR*8i&s_EuJN`%nz?nl|6wD#e{{=+_S z1QqPC81y3&*+-ha`W=rkeJ`;&Kx_n8wXrlQX{98sn+@q zBb~BQy*o^*g5(vAitMlM_5Yg)IS=COW~9ShpdEl$qqxe`CHJOWA9tF~7LVO!ld4*? zW=&!47OM5<+zli$cdbAgThAk|_hGu`=}=akW>q~r7`5Zd2_T)|}|1B)*oOQ6jND0y+k#>OHOEmskV zuL5LRsiC29_1ZQ6xMq>0Z?D5eMUpx$=lu9#@z_#46&P*K5KGwRHsz~iI~3fudc6BN z6SAs>(RH5<*~Ske_~lsl?gcYB(br&(lazKMb1i9L=p9GB=IBSp@O{Dt6n*jfi;8;F{A5@|n&i zImXKOl)P8>^z@XpX`DZQ{&7k^7&-+gl8<@=Ay<(Z5E%UfXi_i}qfFmc8WXbAn6oOpbLp9-qeXasRG#~7#9wi{J_pO#kWS{gh)jTgRFN?bzgi(R@gRj%Kn@+uQ<*#5nWvz!+_hOP* zv2zb&r{BcksQZ3tQ#(BDI>|GGB4A&wj@Sd;eYKYi@EhnE(fMqYm6fd@pe?&4WwOiG z@-Kp76f2MjfM#U1cGWsb8o&YRZxd4X;bpdz^HXly7c8!zz>Cw@Y7~J>xUkOHi$PVr zKE7u*k!4KdQubCb4K35snXye-(|K4TGWWsvLHgXz0^*R)sl~-PCqS?&sG)I1h|qcG z+U38?Ca(XDeoQKkdLqhA*+122q-pB$oMYiL7XmnH&DHDIW2Mbs|43W)hh+QW&I6B7 zsjlD=wZArWRR)^)jsOU>~863w9i9V8o`&?H_7DKRlk zbWF?W(NZSHq^Isn?%7NCR055W)<$0k1 zQLMf00s8VrmcRFr1Bn~45~t2Ry9d*w^~905T@p?C$w^5CtE@d#f8e!u1a|Pzk>llS z<`6n!YuB!2R3-gY$=-Wse?)12KYS-Ccpoti-`zP@Cg>b7_%x_b*L2y@&wC()@DO)i zfBoBg%jD(PugdjY^eas3Gd

    BOI+6w9lx6S1n|?%q|T1_QrBfA?tl=g3IP~p)R(* zo>O%Ff!=Vq{pk@R#ihy9PlZJIk#ry zd-C@?=?wNr_s4MT929r%-02O?@gdBl_`!hHbmysZACFj%z{z=XNqRvZ%;tB3gZu)y z<9Jskbc({)%V!#O5WLK~M+h0K_xG&+t{X&k3_~-nm!WqMPd9ZAS$FK$EcFpDiz%V}NDZru(N#e1}S-=kjC##-3kUV-rU9YF^ogDhwG)bW0! ztKPHozgr|X3Mvc5ecw!-0(-)d@U_}duL}~UVF^fpub=@MPV4?+Oua*UQtmj zVB#TQoFCNyM81dxi6`*;dx1^ULqz_a>BgEG z4M0p0dB=`gPdo7e`w zZ&R;pYV2x$B}eS_8Jsgr(c;nN77Z01q3PYr&Gb%s@tvQD5>!xfu-(Gy-HWnFLIDsC z8W2twxM5O`hAVQVNOFzReVtT~tPgOQ`Q;qKcDbP00vKXP+`exv3%-9t ziSv=-D(~o&l-@P>w~>yl`)S-S{ok%EWQwqoE4tNopbxc!>?oqQ=}Xr4EdL}q!R|Zt zc3ZXa=EGCF?sfr4JL3Y5&0B9t`gR$7Esu~iadBZ`L2X1dcSl}f;VW27BY)RFMmfiB zT>=x&Kec%4=FKGL97vmIK{_9?th{&sej_q`{C$?Qs_YKI)vVm-2E8Y<7@sH>RKv&+ z2^SMwDi&W3rSMk>$!8nsptf2o`|S-Ioyv`8?UEyxs5dOlc~(?X((zl8T3C2#rQ|QI zXt4|E=GLy+tX&1ut21;s7(<>nH}jxXropmf_|OW>mk_d!+@w#r?w_S-H`{G3C=*AY zoI4D`$P8s?bB)LGrS2QT5+U%svWmXwuTNT^8l$t={~Do6*4_c@@K)yh6rtnv;h^h>{FsPg;w zrq%y+>wRMq!~)diA6Ts{7F~+@%z^~+9SLxVQIM!`M7*>%nws;N9lI~pU8y4vn=EOS z6{}_^j>9>^BP^U?HU7$r>NDL_kB$&>GC-y5Pt1e@nj>M3H62lT-rBkj z3JJZkQUwylVVxY$g0oIe4NUuJliZ_6PSJv*i2mh?f5FTQ>I2B4fq3`S(-p2cx_pi> zB4(z*fsIa1MuSngbLrt~p1jfKLOXpNMh*f^!%ciP(ruw7na*)}8}7 zLNx`6ILXt+bkC8t2j~q+aRKuNwJ%zeB}|A>2vgM%I$*wq^{9T*4N?O@48hm6W@2=7 z$3lJATebxMX+C;*OLnqGglz-g{{poyo6(C?bth4Sj|~F6`VP{o28%-x6nw`@;V~Wj z?EmORE7=8~@AO_yZAqNz+PWhDYQa8}y zy}k~nM`l7yKU=`w!C?$la8#9xqRcFSX@LIr(NSGNRj2zptwR8KS@Q_f{kq(M?^X5n zt2#S7N5{waW9?1N&8ssg%6+4j8Hk;>B8M^>5kNoKj5XE!hnKpp=+)UkrT}cJH=n zaBy%ie8rdzh61YfuQgJAAOgrUwTjic>w&mfPyO4sY)mX{Re&8XV8oI~nF*3zK&O!B zKj(>}{{W&E_|@3hU~qNTOH!wbwiAf}aZ23)KeQu}Jj4;=0I{9HnV;`#>lQ|?y{xTd zJ9kr9J)HNs&)#ufS?e20t6-|45E#_C(<_VGNSXrhrCd0<3?e{DRH_Wr9EZ3#SsSX0 zi_4v#3Cg}jyAI<*3R;^!e*9r*(@~sP%8nTq7MyD_9{N&sO>!1Pw2W8oKxTJ7ORfV* zv!9sm3HTPoH+f@Lh<@A5xZRcr2sr0dTT|f2K#z-CPjV3;?aTgj`Wob0Tx}VbgPma> z;YoHVB$oxm-veER1{M|6z%>l7m=AnRY0JlHUq%#ziW_Ws90t} zC4ozeYo2Ps)qj#(?W);924ae+MNc)aZFCuXyN!5=!}&$$DfnQLH;3(MAE5~bd-@4b z45=;&x8Lm>8p?d<26GC7NZ48lpUravy}hEuq*8fEn!;J9D>Rx~4F_>Vsn`?BCbIVi zs+Hj}LRE|a39k|r1GDPNs=%)5IxW;VQuSLe?^yNzJ;%9oOAA`iMijG8ms|u^+pim~ zJpm-bk7NE4Qh7nEvEP{5+XNM1VgJd-onIP&aCdZ*J_X&gQ!>OXY*z7UYNV&#w!ZfK z_N{~}07_xN!rz96YGM)+hhJY8+y<4*cenrsgjo2)>kz}3w!mr4N500;N+@aUgyOLU zpmn_LOMCke!|5Lbq_>O~B)93Mx0jbvquLlaxaQI31kvUWcNZ5*oiJQUgS(3&QrA*= zwv>(B2ubVbqO2_QpDRkcFZCm6pVj)Zkx`X>7z+pq{dUH6wg)1?VABrFn2<#-Ew?lV zXyfwb%StvgTFaeQ?sR7)YWCJ|@%{7bM8YBlW&W{-JZ*?{5bbqMZ{Zw+iI3d9v#Q*s`bT_PJCdf&Prnev=n&R`L@64m-TnA&6xB7@FHcL}mTd(S* z6gg`GPtItGqr%VQj=4{+*-M<@77c(H>Du>R@Z?5LD1_23-)JJqsnw!cEB^cNvyX@! zyK^0N?kQ(lN*4K9dYaH)Z{D;?4BF#axp7l~zhb{x8BBw9lVk+Br@ILHcEkKlt>#i- z6t%9d76rRa%MUk{VR9CrXBicSGI{p8+UKzHi1!2PFdq#{T}|O>HNlvWp8JoI-l5T+ z>X5Lo<1~vc^|wWp=?vh;5jPrUA1oCu^<~QeTPCYO*z!v$rH)L6G+@Z{QnqaoCVOj z7%tS$k$<^_(-dvPIMgN#DkwFz93Y#hWDQO^uOOzhx~3oiiIC8nYeJJWwY0RdC8MD{ z*Hmg&B)IyFEBmCE_=eSF88wG8nerzh)(P zk?l;zyVXChD$|#kZg8lgpQNI0Zufk!O+-YMG}`Co<{rJ&8bR25`TW}#T{gl;N-F2{ znH^g;Z6a9#q2UXXDrKzQAFI1J;Oinm_W>qfZ6|DEB`kBjW=?5{BA<&0>re$&J-%rGiQKf`%|m)ud^NKbA$tO-9e zc#`)Au_lRWF%ovMqv;teiSjZP%crD-ib8v*C|q1O`eHNTC*II7gu}y8)>tVMKRY!1L+W{tmM{XyE~@a?>1i0%EWM9z2p(ZX;TV8Zs$q)kkpt5&b& ze@<{D>^aY&pMCmG6C;~Zg@B>Xf37p1x*j`dHkk1^Mzdg-aon2x!d#Gm6tU~b&i3~9 z%p+g6ZTPoTj@c;;4_nfYZ_$4mUue^$UOts2eaN7{m_aiKWKq21o(_l-KEqad(KK2E z2Wn{uYo$Je!Ous{2u_sC0K%ESYGrKhhm{P@{lJx^iZb<@x+B+o;1n4OK9?k4cL8c*-RpndhplPAWy(FPVB z`IY zUY5QLS60{bbsIR!{jRS07sF3B$i~971W45Hz4b!)KF9l!jqK<5RVw?65#$&O`hL~x z=Wg$Id-V5{FsGB@!~Jj86BsYK_ni+(B?yU_p^AyHVjUY>N4V7Xr|e|qW7@y!$V#es zKR3cZ^uah$CS+XZ!;l6e@a_wN(MkI^!>jA*8Sz^>0B!K-*w_V3Oom!&F6Wxq5zeeK zU;Sb$#-2O64foTSnWbbUR6<}` zF2AZsg8dcKJ5z{oeeT}llss41AW)^Z`Tw0H z=cqAmOUSVBn&7=Bvrk`*lXqg|dwe#N2w(1eh38+$CuJEj@MehBZKAk{pD8WSj#n}S zi6a6-nV}%H?jyRRtKccVA$uL=7FDBFEFV>|aPR!jOK6eENuDAq<9@|i6^8444w5pOLr}4* zt}ZlYLy`bE!b`aHU^c#_kQE%ld+l??w48_y#G++Th?q)VZ&(OxvMzDX5SG|?2`VOh z@Lr;l&6=Ug_rn1Muhv##EiuEU%8#LI93?%01;W$-Ax>IBBOegK%}8GmIoOP8lX{=B3^A8@@1GJwI5EzspyZA-;ZUdL zT4#&Zbz=15&g|UWwi6lCJiK^jz<2trbMAFm3I3g~}XEXW=R&a(;^$)Fy{7GET6Q@P%lfaDi($X4At5d~n@N*3J zrjz={pRPcCZnZo;ZcCoe$7LzX3;}d5-F^D2s{TOsJ_<9NJaAh4ZrC`||IcB|YLGJhB9- zNqvJL#bGOBCO)0R7%_SC{G5>f^s-Oii4jTadykQF0P71$VnSuX|6)@77`NJ3nn4~F z?lS{6syG)IRuSqhLOh@UU%aaY#f2#7r+V;G0gA7XT=8nhx-;@=4J{BaPNL={*VS7j%1=rIwEBSD9)kWharz_T9b zfTZ@ML6vV$)g3zCVHd&zbc5aJ@szz%***0g9ZEG*;*N6sd;JuUg06rymiFt7 z0&pgu39;1B>3>Dd<#8af^gh4pqpwub3avt7wQpFtU3lIrgQVBi+7!3L;ahFZwo9u= zd0pc#*EPQ;&yT-cHhG0vjhV9V;mV7XrMYv9iw2&O+YS|8s7UDhqH*v3?wu3whlk62 z-`^w0$!jfSDsD)>R+u#l&wCW@m-6soB7VJ>lhI09jgbVi@e@anid6ie?%I=e=v`|V z|3-g*fAE7(-`G1H*Q_8!cI>zzWg4E>H?b$?KozgAaY=Eps(8%Bkin_Z07u8{nXEU} zZ`QT?HQ)1Fd6C$-QD`wFO6oPQd7JaQb>_pf_FAY}>X9 zBGieyyHZk9!vgmxDq?%p=L368-(jB@VYFZ3&Jrv11U16X#VY6Z2%3}c9!$XSZH2~dH}!W z=~DNVe0+THVz50twiQ5`1*U-8ad9L81?K&RR*Km6?aK&WcnsucSc4cLi@w0A!gn(; zF)^XAc0=;Gl$>mS?cYNTFv7>p%1lmNojG&n+MgILQF3hdqf=9l z^N+}Z19^@ipBrFVU||u9(JHWRWJJ;3j|w|sM%Bu(uXQOFoe8*YDf?vtY zlZLgU=lgdiJG&vpSF+d&&~WPTndD*6lavn7+pEL3jATa+S4*Xq;sD230)I)t^R*crQh|952cs$>ws~{#$t;6?P%_t~ zo(LEi9Q=qLtgpme0+@n(F534{)y?q<}l&|xZT?3=E6FkfWHH&;=NAo zMb|nyI%I$Dl$L$~O6(X`vD~~BBq^gRh<_1k68=`aoiv$KskkN>OuM^PA&+veUcDbj z+{oPG+&Oh*q4fNU@o`t95?9eLZEd!1o$Txmk=9~3YHi-;NCsjE%);LObg#m_J?C}I z14>ToASy)>s@J>)1q4u-DiX)X$9-!0QAR}U?Ccc1$1P$!;DoVs_dlM5A4AjD`nsV%*y1M!@`dSGi zT5xbM|HR|-pX;7kw41Yg5202$_~K7alIV|Qk>rJ31& zq}t@vUhwZHa(op`9`TunOTT`jFA6b1gpf6@BCZWUf_sDmWK`xQZE0blchF3{OT_6* zeh?~~HAF58E2~tO?^f2p;g-22(vs|KGA z&#gOhc54|Dv2AMzS6A00zyK5N5DOVTa6McUJSl;K!L=jX>tDRMI6pt11`+&Q0qiA5 z(QcQUrB;*#j1;zJ9Ioi}8Iqt<@9sG->Fwk55vlbcyldt{SoOgV4=$-wKf)b$%>$|K zDArMKbv788DA=JDNcUfKLV}cJ6CO8njdyl-wh^w;+V=K1;s#96UiR<~9zc6zW{4Sk zZZ59G$bJ}G!b3wt2YEII1_m;!!Z+|(VFdiuiJNW^YsM!hH^KB_i^t6zj#nx%9xB1$ z+#3rS+pnc^TRVS+eSJ{q5vc} z$EyIfeH$M%C(Vb9su0anP_6MWfX6EcIj7Eh`T6-TXDb(`Pkn4|PJzt@g_^e9b2YK#$vjj7NJRvypfWUq8?5Tc7#$JWQy=PAo2DG%aQjYma$;jM<;<$CQrfrx1pZmq^c(7115~FnF z@h;iGiFfie8i*lb3V})JWFQEe;d)pP)8XA+M#p0Z^m0B21qUCqu-N3#Q5?y}##YM%uM?5VU`^QN(vB^CwM2{~qZR&#ycwPZ0B|OAHKP%nc!y^SsQ4lUtsQ&O$_0_Y6 zhJ60GQM3F#Za?1|)zAD6TslPbV^kqAV(;G&4gm#K^u0!X{s7vAj$iK*A5hS)hFF7D zTt+v>1h`R!Ux|VfX5VkKDWCp6GwO-z)$1yVi>1~pRV@p+i*-5J}#WUc#+Z7 z)3ZfWeei&PwIedkh!Q*`4>7t+j)ct4%zQu>SMXlm=Hn)5bxcL@zf(F@V7(8mo6)Uj zzJDb7czJK=iKn1sQmKDiD;L!WYe;A(em1;&mx3}C`tI{l-Dd_RKeO^t@glRcC2>Sc zG243I{QJ<*A;KC%ll(R81a8peNa5y3Am<9-`(jGeWv)POA?sI780w{+-!32#W6Mrh z0&OFn?HUwj7IIuYkBLbd|);X9OpmjE;?RGYsrB@RkZ zh`Rdv2bq~+D1RH2l*-x|JVr)FUR6S>V<491Cphtaqc8(iH8xUkE{$%De9qfQItXzP z*!X2v0M-z6nAoog4H75*`~(5bLXeX{t|bC!l6NDaXGm1S{|3D98sj4$uxdW9K79DV zMbD@X8WiJZjgE~q1Azy9!?sX)lcIux^~*HWE`@-3g-xqhR?LqdB0iLIK6>;Bo?=y; zSW=DyA&F5IR>B#I(c=ls0B{n{FdFpt_jkkOqweip(lYK~Z;#Tw6UOBA$ko-*q|c;& zPV;@GC!CD@23VJrmBj{^)^j8`Q)}xL8#ivmC`UD(W&(6@z}eZk{Q7gW8+p(vfu}^I zq&R(id_FWa0iJCnpVxx`{0=*RVeIjesEE7QQ;m=S@F2Z6Z-}GjsITwjO26K!?=>j2 z;*nwv#@UCBPPVyqK z2f{(T>W+3W+(N|C`YqZIj+z3o5p>wO5?_0yr`N1}2G6Up?}(g$f-`|Zi);_yHLF(> zs@fI!TvghM)jJA7jhI0OAZ19HRF3wIC(y~so z5p4W@5!bK3#>u}9FQw{(qe?Bj%J=+AN=r$;gqu%48 znc*i5qnPTk^Z$*d4+#z3ucO1UcX7rX?);X|Q5L;FG9}Nv%k&j^TVKyaj9s~c@Ipj3 zXWp7I^ff?c!oriI<)CXyUf%{*S#gn|X536m$AR7;ElmM!?bm1??lS(0*Sz5-N*n1A zK`GlujiiTkcX!hf87nT*Nn<*0f*cOnfkrQ{rS9w3axFu-Yu+bz=N(Jd0Jla` zaWOA2a)!sLW;}5ra7tf{`=}Uqvu98M{yxt$OR`t~;UPy4{VCeAp#8e$Y_{vy{C{M9 zcRbha9{0~IiHIU2qe93kD>HlVkTOCNDkBZMDIv-VDKjfOWm7guGAqeUMx-)Rp7*!= zJpVk;>vhh3?sM+bkKgxuU7zdod9O?Fco_ChWPCi0w6yd>Q>93cxZr^Uc^)-*M{qPJ zV-tD{T4b9^$*h|2n-gFRR{ZGL*uBWepxIeB=AAo7(c;K>PcuW&bpr=aM&F+Uf`WvE zot(0C?LlcBE%!?t#vk2rwWVv<(evj;Bub%C6?b@)}#|i{1Me zo>iFT7%0gQ9!3WVbfZMiM}GhuL;!$-{q3i602G?%_iY zXn5?fx7nJ(V$-2(-%L+`OOH<#TriHIYPNP$ep{35X9kkCIR0O(?8@Po`LNy0yL$-w ziBYJtdoOo_V*r$iCk5f~(S!w;&}{5Mv>1|2!>%pmby!phH;7qwsQTACT~hMG>t6hF zlJ`p>M?ra^Km$xl_IcCL+N!-LCF?BrP}_X2t3ywxlRqATeX;T9@!Tiu*50c`Kuc1> ztfbn+kp!WBVX*O3fWv&<#MhAHFjHzhF)`t-L)kMSYW3`EQM1OU^?XH&W3<+xoVp#?srK9!N3i_cMUy)U&**$*LaD0uPu4aK&Xr;>_&u@_x4q z;&{BTKG($3Mzf^kPql%yO`W>l9bRbOiLu+at+gNhJy;H6Dg2u5)pd9TK$rX)H=z_V zFfhO%x#Rr!v{kNYxw&4o8!|Nj?FB=~62>l_|AAgST4x_X%P=(lsi2?SZ1%FG zOH23Q++67l{Ciz#W4**cQUKkOy@XM@hA1`-q%sZYIUDZ^?v4dt3TagT{=aA=sTfDl z*fw3GqHTB*6qD^5>f(AWJAYLW(=+-ABFAR^^TwaYeOG`h-X0ybhiyQAP|5o>w5F~n zI#E(iLPUD1ThcEUR$l1cB$!Uwe!Dkhxs;4d`T%HBln6V zN<~{sOENT0cdk<_xgoZL7-!KtM>RdrCVqRFWY4o>VkxQZGx#m;bQhc`=e^rVOr2=8 zlkp1Bk?j7nT)UBhq!>>y+;N|P$`O+yDKb1|{MP+D6nz87NKVI*|P3Pz_P#Ar#X*3MtnT{Bw`@_ zD8zu>^jkUU>4o)qd;)T&#X#vHHVk=W2n6rW@M=6m#D)(9vkgZcK<+xjya5SLa9CJa z!(yr1`}_D%4VW%zFc94(4iA_2#rrsw0;&u?B3Qz3k46|b2}6nZw+}H0|JejkV&@Bje5o~G4rN& zXBwKK2)UlHKuZqnK-XK58vWoe$eZ86FwsC3-dj*yEU{(lR_5lA-2FTzqC^@P6p4z6 z7dZ1t5yp~=%L}P}9v_@uKQNyBb~iLM4Y-0SRPkCsAB1ZGNk>OTsge#+`+$4P_Y44w z@tE`$o2E2B4d)_W8D@ER9Nn%xW%YDT1GGfq41qEs!{9m~u)LojefJzZ$OK030R-4G z3V@x^zYuwLt|v4nCiQm*ETtoWsO;i5wx#*cgbWO(WLg4th1WeioDQc(5Ny05`dzx(09C8Tn~N+Kfk=y&Z`MXP^phcD6C)vIV4y4;h{2@pIKfEOZ#jZi0z z{)U)P{o+L_APRYG?OlC`OwaxpZ@s)a5r0Nv5^obG+#+eLl<>=3=zy`eQ zfk-hRX91>`J@WD#r%s&`lawS9CjkUe8ya@{a8iIsf-0X0bI=Ww>;?ef?l|l5{WyVI z5b1aDmb(ZOVR=LgPE=9EEWB!I*^Cv?j88!@*DY*;SHKUk9_w-b!(^9Sw2t3p^ zk&%&y&tHOws1RLZ(JlvIn1mY(l^C#>Jzf=CCpmgM7Nx%{d$3XY42~B&(rl%pBjk#C zGx(OOaD$;aZfB7rYG4ud<)@OihVAhAwG0eA0PL^%R1jDgD#so`GXSl=1Rat90+DVc zAj5FtXCtexO4%1QC%e-C0dWB@IE*MOSyn3o$A#HY#mR}UIg8PyMaCVQbNa5YoMTu~ zb6C`tyNv%(Di-3e___aD#D9NF3|9YOjsKdSe}7A0-v9lt1~oF2|NGmf*8l$x|2sSX zedNE6>Hqn||NcZ#(|%OI>u4VS`=PViZEbBTIHtsruR>4lJBzs%aZYFbx_=NTk*5FNQ8XBHrtPcNvb>9H!CpLrMdj*wYPSPaS z6N!Y~NYCm!OEi%fkx|2gufP27`wjdgq=S^Cz5M(Za)ufj)TFwBft8zgI)G=r1;`0v z=10g6O3b;WAeEG1JF%t&;r+ou;!T!kkwD^-q?zPb?JQ{vyMP9QAONP2@R}5lJz~Jn zPs%Eq68hiQeA*hN<#Jx&9$Mky#@y8eSudcEykg+X6^$Qp=i>qYdj+#Mjp7mt*4O<= zqBb4o^miXHL-q6yCT-}bi z!>jN5X2s;>*fHO0X=`6SArk2JaS;I|p_1oFXeL7-!q_7!8nNwzmk)j4#0kg$W~`?n z52Vhr5ydL=N(4Z5$j%6%*XT0MMT?KMP0+0k5I$iFl|}& ziv!;w4ti8cwr;e4MTF-LrZa?PvWnYNq8nNtaG?gkk4kbCFVF$@qT6@x-inK3!GV1j zP25Rf4VU3ey_b|kM1_q$-t|PE9a($SAfGHtoWlElh$6w2Xy@>Uf{-7E zlPnx8hqS;sbYmNTmuq1)HO`wq?dWI+y&$WC&mov8-r|Q699R^e{wq`wwhJc+cQ77P z3Xbu@l9KC5Nu1C;-iDBV7>YbPK`$V?tcreRD}y%rm>RnP0iq6`;Rpp40Oj*0L{}j$ zO9P^~@8~U{%hYz2#YFk_;|ozF;-oG9fqN4g>}^C0goE|!`hR;c!qAm;2+f_(2Mj?P zBmo|tl)fvP;cV)puNcq&p}Y*FJW(LzTafiD;DED|G6=v(Hcr~HYDkc7w?9cw2S$AI zBoBs|2(02~`Dv)$#2l-6w;r%rqr^5&1bV9}0aT4yBp}t>w;{gOW}r+!Vi2-jt3R-2 z*%I*4jF7N!I=Za;IvG}z^FT^YIXT_=85|tUL~{A~`~Y%$EaGhiW8T5h+qnAk=g%qF z@pwYiQcKq%UNb@)U2T5>As-&AAW1ydQ17SEZ}L%4Tz6Rxe4BiP?yv}Y(SqlCA!;h< zaI~x2Ik1w*k_qs*?+Vx?9g;I9oY7|h9W5&LCE~*Zur38BvN|)c6kM!3H*xtXlbj)1 zQ&VGRW>zB|x;s_!9b<0J^4Wht{bD2MIkBbzRh$7tqzi03JMekA9yW_X1u>H!tF9a* zns`)UBJdnT^#G7(&?5XqZAV`U5GQAaHUMeJCmkJ$h#-R1Jzu>TYuSgfm5dPhxJQ>j zvGYGIz=aExB&2YX!&MSoQ=>>oVuFH5;K8_oW*~Cw2;`=RFU^JF#e>9>lA*_0O)Lk< zFgzyOb`XORNsCQ^%jEiMv=5RCD!U`RmJ@d}U#kGVlvVv*y&65K4tRWcHwEx=Jo z^F$KZm5hWRe8#%7z5~!E&QbtQtyi2RZK0v33_=$hYBgC} zSjdf@6_Y3cO(bd*J=d{5o(`=10y!bpdG}xl!4%}mTz=oLY8;5q%@z8D#<%S-sF^IN zj{osXzXt3jfLD<#qZ4_0aW~o$M4ct$@OcRCwEEA|M}Y2`;)Wg`MV5OA-o;}LGvQ_u zXksHQ&zNFpC9;9KQYxo8H3Pl}Sor6A{kC*7!Nw`<@ib)d-2PaJr%kR5_YI7{>4Fo; z1qwowhb;h--TSUCwEAUA(;u4Pn`0so%m-3VGcOJ~IXW7FfOLJTpYsN5orZ*z#j3t5 zDEj&&0SIOLuAIlfg5(9tAhh-c3pRM(n@Jd`j?EOKZ1R(yq11=7O@I+54l>DOL|@{t z4HFPT3E+%-cyVd=7_b~(G^kk7q@b!Qc~D;Uh~G_P3PN%(0XQO$nUtKFxd|r+MiUMN z-zCi7{O-_bhkL(Ckfddoa#Kb%$NuIbhGbyT<^DQUEe8Q&C`@&?s~Z%yAW4m+eC*h<(w_ig0UXwU`osyG*vj>gqeQ$V`(*(6 z9)vrl;SY$YD=`ybX^2zo!c3q3pePt?tbHCd+-PI%JD5nwj~I)y4d@cEwXk4819QEk z#4F|p(q9*_ksRuR$OueQab=i7E2A_}-6eOmxTuJX1bSRG+l&`eCGZH~tG>dMr>|U* zB}jcJZMc<`xc-N`mXsXi(|Zuq($XS0X`%XN6-IBu9)OJmWSAin+EsA1#4Ju=W`ty@ z`~A9CHI){cqcZjQW<>G`V?5)#`xMT1-csS-`YfEVsYc+nQ_ zj3yC`>0NNv)L6k}q;DMsH5-3@5pcMTAXVCJDlY6NjM306>p1uzXQbiDHT+ct6}S+1 zJNR>0vXj9!841SVNY}u8K)4x*T$q`|z>CPT5^5Wpo9jP*{GGkewxD{6jpzZu1z5;E z#wIN;DS?<=YZC=$0vN{Wbt*q$iw zk|si6emFF(qUtL4+7hHYQLw>ZV2!BzVbJ2jbcC7X2%@wI_c&gz4`(nQv>k{cwvd^6 zZ8MyMfO<)QEGHk4;Q{i*=n(KD)+q3k(N{NV3DBqrHV@))1mz?y16ssgDYunWIOHyF zMK_>=8$$YuaRlGQpYa2G#?}qOjEqEtcgC4s8h+J5zw3X`8#pd4N*g>EEgc;ue-RcqLZHpObwY$NF@X(pN1P6DdxD%i+9!uX2Bj{M zOiQ%LMKE!a>K=$YaBn7uBOJw;1R2@W6XnGQzlk7d%lo3<-&D`G_G4o~UO3Oz4p?0i z+96OPJaO%K2ZU|{;5s6Hc6bko;_)psRXxd{0679AhfZ4hg^RCpk9mMhx6Csp<1&HvF0kr@cMh|s3^CpJ;j_CcSurlfs`>wNd8@?E#P>HJ{ zK=XLu@WsL%pO_%VLpySDrz`uM@}NR2JwZ~H*bjR2Npop^qsNoNivbY`vAw^`CjAx z;-0<}1)c{>UcFL@j)~#n=idaEWB$*8Y$hG=x>@er!)$seCSeVRG+`1v@k zkz^FgYUxT~hDiwiBvDxv6?YRki~x5CqDmm9&Baw*NDj_0ya%iX7@A6@W}@3CzV_y_ zAPp%u&p*!qAq^1v-h_=u1^a{m&e6W#i;B9AxGg*MG)Ld8;&J1d>aL5w>gjo=Q;z+K zhE@jlmQ?Xiz(H~D)Z+jrQt3Q=pg8~m6N*+()zHvTPY)k&mH8wY(;_h_N{SO80v@f$ zm)E-pT@q;+VPs2!%SZ{mQ#+pfIM|rq44l0rAGzGc*|&!y^!Vzb?IK(XL zCzFgM>AZl@C4S9L^jFBcVOIU8bf0ahq<8M1+taM9%}8HIPkrufKz3qk?;(viC~m=- z5ML9idkwU#9`ki8YSS2(2t%DpD~dReO6ME zyCl0GMS*Bx)Xe5zKD9-rm)rYdDhOJRKoWiVDaH{3!ADMts{CZHr0w+C9|!}wdi6-@ z!RnFTsug@8Q5C`*m>8gmtpdvse0l?l$_k%wlpPv`Kn3R{6ri#`Dxqm_uQc`?3Rgk<&VBgCFq?YdPC}4z| zz{oOyeu44^Z{1o~7X+7QzIU}w#(hYev_#@eAsflrss;pJ53Ux(PO@NA= z@e~}PWdc0=Nahn-n!)EdvV9uIuzKy6r=XN&tYqJ$jNoGo{OH#qeF@y~4?k56!|P}< z_*1C&5jRF3J%}s;czLsn2SN9q0SWocnTU!`~HoXjz&qNY3U5E-`K~<=nt2i)#uM}=3J%_*-TDFP5lm-&>6IB_T=dS*qOMRjF7r00J~rd zQMS%Le@m#=2H6>cLPBsy<4KS!qaV#GdWb>f_z6WM>Nz|usF;iM2@}H!O0JBxhjG7tm5MXw;xbo>vP3&->44b|1vdvFN*#ObOLVT5S&8UD=JZV<8s8)CW!P;QMh*te{vFnQy&J_OgNgt&Ou03T)Nq#>F|HjQ$SLS%mk|dO@uS--xt91{x_v#Z>Qr$CDb5$(j^X&Ey>V1yh9dQHiic9 zuIgCsPY@>(iI%vuU0qYt6s1VioUiFlke71p3j=L3 zrpYE|nQdl*W&;D=9YR5fx4$>46`uF{`s-lMP3I*Lex;2qOGq1Q5%M8ponrJB?3gpU z|3ld6E^&}RFtf4g5S$6teH40l*n(~W^qTtmwMRC8noEiF7Tde=Y6&~V|1?9b{Y)lM z4ogkuJWWr(fs7Q>dCaIk1jNOQ`q*0`^2(d(ea;E@R3=)HF3?o_`S~?x{D@wcEE#%s z1rvFUnO}k4pgyNB`k(D++x;ANP=sK_#zLgGq4hfh*y({ZJ}`yo6*P#Cg1f9gL99>h z(}iLwh%Ta&lB_ewJ{Vz9p%2OE5-zL(p_K*5XyzB3or0w{rTc;Ozz$~$k}@ey)^mI_ z8MmrxJvFB-@ioF@>UiwJBu$)1o@haCVa<9S+D*pz5~f)6c?fZ0aFlp|@beRFtu&xz zc+Y#dl3C2q-C#VUMVSGs@Uo$S5@O;NAV5Uth-ugX41y$m*dO64OvlqF_f=5H)N9`V z*H6r@mMPP`^2cD42-tr3!5?hqU8PL7pi!zbaI!<>sN#g&$L7^nV-`wFfrmt7$J;eVs7> zJT<7I_ZkIpB=Bz>zxezbHz73oiV=)wr0!iHqcj?_vx&HB1$$c%=IntG5m_ zYu*%J5-5AmT8Du!;fXCZ5LzOlc`u@shV#wY*5>%NTE@XgmnqFk^KfeHgg z76cKS<}L9hE$mT@fkAMqZv)EXNirop9c>Z&2dr1O%#jaJB{yUBaso@FfX@;pn1ns` ztgexOr%z&(TtVl+vsp!uagoCP2L6HX!fXT>)_cBtE%IdoCe9jGiaz^~kG&G)x`zthvm8JLwx~h0LAGj+&cH*|O1RLSLXy zl}wmon2H4G9sD9W+~>4V>MAnr@_jimIq5*$0SC4lx17;rn9v+ym}BhXB`HxDxkvv) z7y5pck*^f;P8A1)P2@yLPzC)a{Vf>1H9{G5-zPea!ftO+1nF7!7pvr_E6Zd-bflVG z%hL{-6m}dztt1~317K;S>TnSR0!~h11inkJ^rLOy=iS@xIEG-V8-vycenV1BbaYn1 zr8qJ-szOF(Mor*%*ogX}ly#J($0X-f=KkELm#xVP>FbV=j`hCI-DF1=w2kzj=irnn zNyerqFfP$(yF6K)8p-}V2M`&EmAO%jcn}PVlkXOoM3^e=TwK~tOE~E3VaCCn7a0?C z6Vu@^umK`76G8<6+|2f)+F(o2SyI5&oE>EUNFPfky^5wIi?8qfIXJY_+qALLsMq}4 zwHzqq%SZ#;j&?U|8q*I;lMa$ON~er5Z%)3{SbLQ;_^e}ZjLyk(=L}H2uYqu(yeb-{ z--zTFX}9pU_K9DT+hJrNEM#3jH#s?pjQyKHbXLoxm)Kd42ymwgXSuAE z2>tQhmh)jXlyu*9e-o|pCeouFt>!{mRw6BIh1zX*78@<9Mg{+H(s4hIU;{naCw7a} zXYTj@9qqc{_31cA2gQ8@2cJ=q&?t1LAr>NLZP2Fqr2n~6vcfW6o}8sMzI$3)nwr7D zJZY{Ojp-^B+`VhyJrP5(dDC~vpuc_{jpfmcZvDV*P=kOa>O-%rV*(i?X# zJUvVb;sGgNSXz44od<9M5)7#@1Me{E4cP1M{5W@JNoa@YrEqqhBSGAoxp^^+5%VzI z0EBc=kMFu3UvB9tI$*UkXR=oWMMN|pBN+FTg~Dg=_7E8^#uVONm89YMI~J_ZF0GA_ zj-Gue7o?KqvN%VkMP*bM98>f}vyI2@sf~}aBy|{L@Mz$&h>_&SO0wRAM@KleFGU|C z!4}uJXGbwqE|_g75;}E?pXBWcDj;3xk9F71FexhGB#znwHQsx041t^0a<%7+Yd5yC zx`P@DotlbBobJBu+L{?A@9*7Kyf%HT==+^GfAv=rAqk0hSj_g?PmE-7$YLrS!N*HM=j3jkK#|x#- z{3XSbSbw;`%E-;7Mb`#tnKECLLR2_}+yVjuSr5Y?DKyL9)vYz#Bk85KcMcQaQNhN) zs=JkY1;;E%8_Hf=wg15^lKTtD2k7$;<+zi8T*!@Jnt#bpb2+38sK-qN=JJCh~s!5Mg+mKAnVm{BRS5_UfR5-Fu!K(WG@Lw}EyiGXky{o}Jwqq9#F} zBi{6S^^iTGKX@eRpH(p}IbtNg(X-qmi&)wXdXDWB@(oP~F${5Aj|@UWfl%b6M(AsGEK z_D*U>aPyvR%r-1&T8N_!IA@+3ZwU3<5JMrNrGQk?~Qu~^UZpc{}yOPKwsRNAs79rvMJFh5a3Bhav_*I65ikLkFlEm@Edy0aWl4uwnz5l~R#OG(LfZB3 z3*82Ff2p{+>OAQ;`Kr-G-1mcYH8jvufc;x_n+Qn?pAJDgMpXTCnmW3=jr2B9!lo2# zxM_|+ZVIs~l*JVgh%@SByxXBH^4K#>L6+!IzwZd5=eTv+Q?-=2PMDs`SM3FfTSDT8 zag=EOs>{O~>bJ*|gb4ip}iJ42F3-%q1pV+kj-$_L68u(Y52{Eo0*1k z?;!O2*$Vp$)s>e=XufyDSk)n#LvUNI(hjyD=FY3k@m zPC+^4DUd0Ej>@%8hKwIl&dBx&JfcXg8-gzs)N~lK+j7?lYugW?1Co3eU{LWd{B-;k zh-YNGuCa~zt%rjrR#tt|e(G`-dbCTGRY+Y2OqoVs26Ev)56|2Fav%n$5TMlf~;%b3NWr zxUZ?!0>RR`bM#O1gvB@hy#Lylu}5BE_xaqecbHp#{)miL#+bqH2MBKlFV@d0a>LP=*>qDA> zT+-k66uZTB#ZX{D-n#nwJ0S0xv92Qme1JNWSSjv3IEQ@(O#^{1yb8x=QW-BCsB zV+ySMW7>vLhM=W0t!6pb_ms%7rX<}ZJ@=G(9M3><=;>F0KL1}P|DDiKB3@%ip>lLE zyZ*cL`?BCCAC^BWMMghNZ4+4h#l2a7Qu;g;*N%>kWlUY(Syp$%nszt;;Rp_@4(g+L z&^5qxAVe()qWY@iFI1X`l~Ik9Z4G0br)DhHb2B#qsn^OdX=wcXQt9M~jNdQAmiD&D z$F^^KB1~n2u8{h^?{A-OAyc*opqmbsjjo~#fjV-)b||uZRH_?z{HJG04HROOX4ULC zBUJ=rQo$(z>QyP2vvyy9`-rdTp!kb(4*f%)J%%IF${0B*aH8Oj1j+b>Lc)y=%*HI+ z%!*84ygQ0;uH=d;krJfv`#rt;C1%mvk3NivO&EpOKfi5gZLay76gF7oun9BR@%fuj=iC4pN|EDK zut(;h;U^0tx;pw0HF5|Ypd|^q?GE*LnWWdtMcvcfF;dlkUu~fc{oa08!LoRkJ-TfI z%8YZ{wJo6}h1AYK5O2@VM}iod7QH!?A2$_?udU@c38ZP#)z8M8zU3+W<8WZZK!vx) zww6ZePZb?X3KiAO#Sc=PoSbD9G7ie0hd{7iE05omZo>I=HGtxrTBCfP*nW~5NsK+{ zzTru8T2Yi+bO+j4bd>01eGcfU!Hm#^!HLwn;*}_yZWvAzwAbvHJDB7V*g1|cL`Fy7 zSYMY|dhc%3QKF*BEzdSTy`*@f{HE;Fyt8bJOR+IABT!mF0^wiRv27PI?)tE9 z9kz2AfPj$mvQL@AP-ThOmzWW3M8DLTsP>70$_?%ss|8M=Y@zqxnFui75&Ve;8+8UT zk@Y>&O%9`FUCv!q@qH438)E_*5s7P-XmC7h$%oAw#lyx-<9qGtf-VuMQhrPCPcPcY zpl}1GPJ=$ogm(+Mdy?v!*$t8p zb7N?Q>!BjkosSDN0-~b9ckj{*A9yVuFe`M~;g#$6<)8Vc$9BbUd)v0L&++u6VqQm_ z>QUOI1Ny&EAJMP()^F~DY7zCkGxxI zyhnh2p)-WGcALW<)xAv`@|WbStpuB2%l>p9j&N{yzi>m3&o%mEwwWNV5TLoK(nVKy zOwsz^OGscPm!aSuK6W+;pJSvf$01in>*Vw#e46%XwLe`w|OafzRh(JzQ40mX;PZkP+bE1(qBNn7!b5S@28w-tbkSC-Wr>up3wsW`dGq z*OzKJ+R09iGiD)iYkZT&i4_kL<41H>J{P_y@lE(7Faswhex;Y^NJ870m~Mg@(RV%g z@dFY=*nl;utKV0OQC(9j=;n#x$8DNqBq$h0hV7P5@Y|5SudRp=)Vk6lB7^-~BoVjt zwyVp7S}eiv7}452J#0I+Ysu2d*)C|_+&`osPVsZn;`!@wb=ti4N^IZArmVgOl=;0dw~YV=Ld^j7Wl{EhzU# z`g=F0S?gZ@N&i!C+<0gDdG_tgFqyN3?S?I!kKyZ{4)e|0H8%ui&4+J2OzL)#gsQF3 zzx(`P!0~yP9ltc__N;o<7p$zV*+g`ljdc>y;if2~8>m9?Ah^tSuz2}rsKCUY25}|` z9wA&OV@*UUg=r#<eczAlY&@`QU5fzi9fAJ#yvG=l| zeehqx>qn9uem}o3{~;u?;!=ulzrl^ZE#=cSZtp9uAE}>ja(iypaQqYbuh=glIv#!x zFftFBF*m+|u#LE`3}aVngAgHML~O2^9$yr>9(7G@VXPHHWKiyFdCaeeT>D=C0Tv+m zsq*4*rTXKe?ZboqpAS9%HaIDwXcFJh&;Z6w(bhP6*Sj#{TbZ3-9?m&;`O_6&_JOi5 zniUtO-K}5vZcs!NdHgiLZ))<%VrXzf#X8XSCZ(-}^}Bp|Sy_#xS-F-spM2k!`*KxY zoNxa8IWDonyVbDeaQBm=q4u3`L^c*!_ze76OUefeg2KrIBJo}JbF8qkKIxu{#&r!x z7C}wNu52`bU1b%s3j)}bM(P}4W3{|jXj8K3>b95Oy}1w$Q&O&fI*Hti%U`OOl{ALL z%dDs;U%&Ty_U#?P=bBaI+U^X!3ASP!K|$y1_Uj+R8dqCP-(*1E@4t2X^_O+UjgQ40 z-+t@=qyJdu3L6v>E;lL1zMakb{%!xASFNU}2g-eI|JGJNJzn~-@a<^l8%60!Z^f0% zN3L8vB2RlLma8&V{{H0{oyB{p0z5!F&57m3cF5T%q=J{YPXNA90qE=mhfmw_M(*RO z=JUO3K-FsTGP!M-?fUo2X3YC1BjEcsJxg(Dspib=KsK!sftdI zJj=GWhDfOGg=DDgL)~jA35jees8Lc(vfl{ak=QOH%yZygY@MpSZ$gjp5u&=Sy#KK+!8ka2;C5vn&+jtn#IdDJbm|~wfFSfyVW22wSVbyONl%( z=REh)St90?A$uQ5N%ky6un0&u3*nuiTUMAa zQ?^98@6@Guxak$?nbiTDSl+eHrNs4w`(&lIh>CW)a6LVEy0fe1V;-pEba?~2m|RdI zLQW-DWWI+Ua^=y{$oHc$)`3L1YGplY`|a&H7Sh)&Y<;NDpPzr1Z?E({NzKHp&}=vm zd8Xu-NHg@i<+G5;69Z14AbD_AjW)Q*dpB`0NGJF+Ga`yCXjj>-O6NTz!sfNt8gw&E ztUY^$U<8>m<DXc~itQt2|hQk0J5@f&#P3eNkgNb&}{M-%rp zWgh)tC&NK6QBtgJ*vYN1=itV9>O16zlXfN<1REr7SY-bGEt|A6&pgy17qNhG-#?t} zmv8y8d5h)B9&a!%AWi_!XCV*HrVOcKQ}^HvOKQ z{$i8ZBqgHoJC%4-)3@;NyRp|c)yE}lCLnZVRVlhH36Xmt;+mUbtWg)gzufmi6gY*T)m@2)J5^6wZ-YTSx5GUvuV65Gp0a*xWVMz zZ#wcK@01p+&a%o~ny)|i!uD*R{IHZ=?jcuWnk!^4Mk{!wShHpVUbgF=>B+h`jhTJ! zCr_PR9S8Rdwq`f#?=)rkKD|gb)jHY=Q|tG>K-ws_hcf{$^i}L}^!*o|k8LJRh?aJ=T;-Tl30JEV@~)i_R;ai%(l_+N-E}_k%;)FcAum|G*Y`>+;lsZD9@H>P6eNyFBcB)bJ&@>w|37y%G3mzJGrdQd?%K-#Uva#Z}&FnV~)S_b#jU_uN8(l z4n@kK@o2MkKY!h4Zd&g8U*wnfvP++($baA`8T~})Z==X?&f8-~83!4ht@W8iNz3}h zsNJYN%e2U0d(h$ZL_hZAI}uzBCw^I3>Ei5=ZFa?OTvlx+7{iuz-E}h=Ps0wacq!wg zfglOn{9;St3)626QdhT?s$A=u(Y5*B=Jwp^+Tq=jdy7-IXm5IM*1bGOF=)NAsq&?r zd+h@ZrW$D@Zx~f|tFJ~(2DYZ2uPJzUghSDd`(kC@yKiwe1r`*X-;gX1JmsFoe|{i||fbs1^qpJxm=@LKn;aIL@#Jt5*$GSrCs=rN@F?_dQeEJae>(^Fh^=vb){D_DMFy@Qs zYO$A9m?zba?WEuOJ#KR>Mag>=nqtv#HJ#gnDJ^9jFx<{H0~JEKd!kpBsmJd8`MG4} zi~N&#{9lJ$xzAVqIjJp}vvZ+;Bu#$3!AtFsTRn@de|^J(!Y23NuD3=J{@L!dZOm`LykSZ%Uq7jLll1H&ifDU_PhTpOi$&S>vkKtu-o6o z&<)()T+p#;{`JI{#ERINrr&cN zU}3>)N&kAMuJ&AWOQaT!@xBHYc}UK2eG7fb`><4jEJ>H9yKEkR0#>p%J}LR*U07FM z0Qs0%{4I`YbL5kMYiZro^9;+cA3yd!Grz4?$N_csNZDFUfn`WE!_ilL*ETto#N%?z zhXxh}qlXzsdUAynw&XXyJ@Ti>DlcYcQ-)REFk8F9W^{lI>d`(7THzY1bb(4CcCxr& zZZ2_7XtZRzikYAxsXoZ?p~0jmRY;t9?#Z5(liQPAFSr&Y7FoWIae0jXCA#Q%EwP(; zS}hoHw=qXrkx5kuUX8|B_yOsM(GOoe{&;cwCB+)ERtuVnjRq~R9jR?AJ057Kyu4gZ zH}q?&SC!W*-0FqP-B0J5opR-0Se!Y;w!=tOk&`E1Z_7DU|NN_;ocIqO{9Q5U=48I} z=Hq9)^gU1Ik5)02ef~b9!#( zO!9FZCKjT!|J|SejP}cWH%F&aF~8~Gf4fM}Dce;3K*q%6otCyfaRxpAHlS~BA^{3$ ze4O>uvevrkuX4-3^VJcn!(&wP%fHg(e~#Dhn|f!#+cjyw+S$G_mT4QHn%iqH5g$4m z+&H?HufW38?91ifv@W`H#9f9}>M}`GabvH3;vqrB)pt`yw&m$wuwAH_$x5?4a_&i1 zq`tn}{it%a>!735MmeXbq3F{q=4{d~bq5UH4w1W1{QpGcMG>Dq{>4{X(raSRYztcBfYSh$)y1ayyf+Vz%FUi{Z2L{nYN>Q#B4f zm!HoMs-DY_89b5uTSoS5ACvsAfs)q&KTbLgDv{ZKE~XQyI@2yyadFC0pUXGrR``P?N$vC&y`4F2~mXVRW498s5Q7Zmk;n)+;tmsarlsXS2 zD_+{VtL3&FHRDdJ+@9ZERmYevkz4MnFv1WknNL=Fli13}H+E=I=^Q<%_|4uYTdKlw zYMcD}ikIcjrw=+}xAx!>}>ob?;JncWp!EPLn+wM=)UPV?CwPKq5KP9TM`$%fIfZ#cHTo5(T~ zthhMW;$^6GMDR|DT}?6E>DPLimIc2q(#bT$3j=Mfq|U==oU)gO{P>G+ z_J1`uEJiusw6*a~H|(e9l5JWR3OM=u%_jtX-%s*i^mx7{f4Kbq-u^#sr_&q;id;n_ zI{$79XP30YAvGxLC$KovTmHpvX|^l8zS&?q^96^{tzSL|KBX>B4Y|U|zFw$U=d!5~+Gnez&9oy`Cui}}kBK8j!=D{~1gwo5|5cG8muGb-Q-5aX+~o2% z%TA&fNHeSsYIVH0yd6cWe&&2tvmBS74z>u}-+*UsU17$1f;~3UeFvKpUeWJ9tfHmW z!E5o*er)vEi<3<6Wo73?`a-l@XO-MN`)Km6VW&Sn$@0q(6b2R;p{O{7bq|Y^(LsU8;bCr< zFOOfoe)EQ>*?I4tJyEKfcL`XC{;xN4)cYGSrt?LW5Bx5~W2e6Uh?vyYhZG;YAVp2h z7diO(RkgO4penwddbV{skbT*(A}+w+*Lv~Ga(KT&fTr$U{!vP#{;Np>f-Ebtf0UdjF0XVTr?H`P!CF8r7|zwl*{ zWtY-9vwKnUSP_|*I#V;gJr48`QCj~+Ymk}i^AzY^L9MclO>4zXmJ4|`zQ42{`MB-0 z%8MQ2H}E(#O$m5*e0-|pgqBu=qlAOlR}UGS;qO_!`rU2f4<_=3v)h=8{r*)EpZUml z^;TdOUldKLmA{eazp9iv7=^24U27+G^UO{8c^~3{|5Y*Z#MLGM9S(7J;*r>krxv{f0U&M2C%4&6OZFpj;)nQww-SqfE&(^id zb>FmG_qK8l*0!vdmz$5iX-@0+HI@^8*3)~2T{27!r(LPlr{%a$n_=(1Q$J!U(sBHD zuBrBBHOcYt+>a--zg{@}ZqzW^cOs{ad%r9dR@->6s`~rF1w)PSL_H_-=NySQvJ{7? zcZ)u7?k$$pTsm9+eD(m(y+<$T##B^Bk5+ChR+Y=)p7{%gpA{XMZ4azOemJQ<9U$g0 zt?E~6pW*v8Ymk+cK+?+T!cw?8_=h6t^NbE}~u*>(HE48X5 z--N2+amodV(JhylQzxs3Lc33=hsC{jaY+6U5S(?Y^e>Osy#F#3$ArG&dM}b?;3x zxRl;f_?`d9KBTsm%hqpgH(TD50m0y*A?jP(I2+JB33RPhRntBFv*`Ou#Wkhh*LtDs zl-O6y7x4{Ae?x=VBrmT~fA;E~iA}`5dZ72j)Ao|~+(_G-HyUYOSwV6cS7<%FJv-yF z?jFXsk9z-lfhn`#;~OjCaz{s}oxabPd=C5bB}5J-u!%cXDui3=OzEKQXfvX@LRJF zIjZQW*(BZSdRmubbLvdad{wBcxTl=KrWDBZZemE-q*Kzdb4YdTRbChNI*EnS_a%6V54wL=KAJCsHZjH<2H<&2? z+;vF@Lt4xt*>_4KiaNLF-*M(FOy07+^ZLSX*}2|pKHhss zmsgcaJ~cl=74^J4?}Rh%48yT`iDr(7+?`(q7_jXsHMUOVGpZKIe8v;>YL2`*`=La1 zW8jyi;L*$0Qc*y>EeKyUxbGsVVLHmbJNqWiF*{lF6Qb zm2!J^oXn-T{MV?An+=P;^q+d>+C6=1)44ZZhVC;#_r6}Rg7)p}Kn-2&;0Y%MiNuhx zW(kLBH85-k7S`nDFIZIm*mol@A6W>pT62=$K_BP!^HQ~^?mimL4KfYe?z7jZedTaGh8~V8qmMK)Se-B@HdP1k; z#v6MTACos2?^>jN|_SP?fwX|pbrEhUf$7~Q}TVo#Tvdws!?xu8~;PrK!eXEl8m zdUAqQ3f65XXy`~CKg`UYxLhUySQr3$GoL%Fy+hK+#a8><1dilSW4g%sKL>%BGRi^o zN!%T{fK2uX2nfI&?1oVpX~|d@a$NB5&i3;9}1;!eR0Qb|VH9;@=?Yat+I{#S@Yv7u`NFihW=2LWjCnqxd!}L!p zQzaOQl$0$kiOVfnT+CNXPEZ$%Kc{Bvwe1LCjtqF*mdS{T1b)_!H2<2|!r^sxye<~r zcE{Wv0o^7b({QuXKr#0Oifrg_)<*nw&NHSJvt*vwM)~?;yv$7fZN(Ik{p0Z*sbRLL zibFk0Di;0MBtdycNp!75En0dyqL_Z*8V**{y}yFC-T{UxqhS~lNY4lS^pQ`slax0s zK^Yeq6x7AJX#rh3^!95n=W<^^270&RpJO0M1Ez$MV7eKMu5?Fo-)?|OkHfxj3Ou>D zH5Qalr&a1|v(+vx$f`S4Xlh2b6DBpV$Xu^c%HD}hp4vyUT*s7=J-MgB6%D3vFO!7j zVPYRloVK=nZkjxaLrs${Aw)t90nYUZe1!G`0Qv^YlznM57h|6qH#JXCO>j&J_lxuvKWZuUj)mmms=hDy$wH727GF6-?{~5+0MxZ(eD1?#{~*cVm@bf ziirxAetyt*6;4oWwZpS7H+^S$@Ym9}VTj-#G#o+q*QvAh1$BxW9GSUOcL%vRS*w~rKnQuf zYagRlK@|ozS)V|x9aLwBH_i4|G5_}8ZR4l7uW~lT!hrmERj;M#Xl=Kt4%I%gqUPk} z%9<{HSm)|WjExRU@-`+WQ*rLFQR}S5-_!O7{D%X6HWtjtgIDoz|{{|uqoyrsWCT!5La!o*FAY;uHa&6Zk{6E?>81gIN% zR2x{3<@w&LM=FsTv)lP2fd1U45GaK+{m0-c(n|m)Igyg=z}7E=tF-+5vET;41yin& zO!RxeoUr8cDUFufX_fBNrR4nwy|2p`a+G~-;R?!@Qo;nfTE8dWVfZ5kHgQ8Uj!4t* zqHyRUv{_LEtxt#@o(KSL_3>Ru^Xvl_mWbY^T9*!E6dogXt8rQwR`w4HN(1mbsw+G! z45bj;LaKyt?$5#>s0)n{AvwcFX9smLPx90?Y&_gaub}hCMi&~)oNV7dWsl_+ZM zInFXnKdZJpF6I@ZCHFoIxkDT}urs>$$n7lbLOP$>rQ15-tv2N&nY!5T ztH1NdEz$Nmx(XV#!|U4P-32gE6iLg%R7%fsuP-6K$xW)ZN1(yw7tvX-f8HZR&TH?d z*RHU8q89=ah|-cU_is#jZ??>E@+S&Fa34;eVyz4%PZ2!T?=G2JRXPfApLRZcgys{x zco4&7?{p6Kbwn@-`vOL9qF^T#5?Xf zi>f?jLt#5RJu7xx9O!f%yI-z1s`c-Bg-c&9;aQT_)2NBBNER&a{O;n(F8&r<8O*;Y zfE$CRZ43kq^ne=86frtWX@{(FTZj;Lsr4D ziK4^12aZCSUpH#fekwRP9M+rbm5e!j?AhQfkX5=r$3|+;0g9wIi$6cfZrK09O*hrbH2ZLrvt8HDNr;zyqWuOBrSf zoh~nIH^&q}UlkZHe{nJ&Qc&5&kmTHiG>Cbb35F>ZlShkj+pqgdr60n50~oRE)uNrQ zuCQf&9VA@f&z(8w z5QUUnNN%0t4a>9lVgAtbEl(F#f1~C2Z!!Uls*vHYa`b9=1KGn77%FDN*#y9a2_F4T z4XXcjQMYY0j7iT&H+n|-huZG8@cuu;+S6+$Y2-ri|t*xu{f$mF#-V{UBZ0UX$M z_S?DyY{R|IKM`Fq`&5+C{9%vqw;xrw+`gT^`mzpDcd_AOM#UKm#ZgpSFlm3T0~aWA zp20X|Q76PUc!3vgA;dJ5o1H9X>!o|F{~7g7a_(t4ZzEjY`X*v4r-_8I4Vy73LF~qE zKVwQz&5_y)dg0>FR%?wNqF0jMI7^74{@RnaNo{`en&{rL=GZ@=Pq z3+M5kC}_b3shqz>f+`$Vp+07a+n4rSFE4pp(qt75n?LCDoJN5d&_>T+*cb za=iMbfSox1LW`M@E8&Xc;KlO+)t!V|| zr^E-P<`c0;rs`Z~T?sWiUHHytr)th6);Aj)pUcJAou$agbaya%p z734G~1=#Nr183HPA0;Kd3RCIhlxVU#6+BQp4X&S}Powp?@f4e{wW)Z0n;WY|p5T*= z%>?Yj>>AfuzCeJBrqX@-$?FFR{N?kP*G^NKb8aI+9l%KU!0+I-)mf)g!&Dv|FzEY1 z4IM~ozX1lJtnz;qVtxx&!-pp&F70NL!PbY4r>CRS9bH{Z6-jjxIm4VLzY$vUGWsK_ zy@i(DAx}TNn5Z!AhCuL2vk5Z(6I)8Bvzwrk`8n%$O2x>c&b`=dchxCiUi0e6X-Q?q zf)_UCmYFZWzzwU`@7x~_Xn6lD_PH;pm@|w``M03yDX|M{Bs|osLk|Hm3eT50zvgzI zLahLece=~ONNe5ImT%HG5SlDbyIOWcM~Gn@f0`Yg-kbk39c{5qe7p}W@tie36ygxK zkn$>Pg!AoW+Eeoi)I)7DE@Pb05!)@9*NkY5p@m_*jG@xj|jy4__ zcke3eL#?vG|MJrZ*o5t`4BL>ra?5Zon|)~P(J_lecPzIp&emJrDq@>u_Bze-l<^y% zx-^^L9yRxlnmRc+Ji$gsgOYBl7c4qqPiTHe5<^#;vs+@D7QCx{`SRXoI~sE2HtXUV zpCgv1r3#Ll^h=1W1iK${P@~`^M1qD@tNgJ&^dkJW2C^S6J4dhcc6ap#BTY5r zdMkwi_wcEBuDwuIw*EAkQ6`96l{!1O&HY8A*VOC}rRLw5Q!}ev{RDNv>*@N6xUkm2 zgbg}=$V7YyCQerU{c@Fd+~>BrnXjdGK1OZ-O=daAA*Xr5dR4qHM=kp7yU~wMPvY`^ zZOOXbON5#B0OU%KfD!~h#I(=3K+w^DCBY``GxIor- z=2+=l(Hr4dX**nHFCH|D8gra?_*Q+I3)1!Fe$hmAf!(L-(8i1l6}0a53_Wo3&Zq+K!Qo=1;eP++{g< zbXg?_ac5(i2x@rOOH)m6^G>sh`T2F3I%tC&))O2+{+aii7>MDIl->+AfM9PP$Cb%y>8c+rBthqy?YqhU$n18!#Q2pLt20yR|5`+i7@(DIHell{*5_?@&* z_ubqEm$g}E52KQDc8WeR%}4DaAH`KoZ@$>xVnciTu*6cmd7ZXJ*(QZy3S55@G8?cP zRae@eqmPAF?$P?3u9Ifj@omt(U)|P=XD_>o0gH3cc9Q`0*LEP{yuJc8b>vLP%mtiEp?WSqUG0+I+zC-`5)5m3b@n)&J zpwcNjZ$uET;Y7;Bnu{}aUW&W!4CxM-O10nE5?-n&lc^V5^F8#r^X(^E%-gp?aqOPQ z%PwuP+L5!%%T67Fa57C!e!BJK*Pu{7(K8d1+!V$?0tK6|L0sgEUeez*BU2OTYK z%cb+{*MyR(9GXhs`39W-qZkI>+>J+PkLj*C+!BNbA)!w!Y>iuRy**___5(UQ#d<9Y zS4~Zhd4slu5RiHmf139A!ZrPQSk`ZC)_T^zgdp14rF!OZ#!E`Jdl;;=v>d>6oXl)i z*=uIxET43gNcH|sfeun4F(f$HhBu+7$X%7@(SQ5T2meI7(Mu*>_mV0uuxsaHqn#Ju z3oM(!Wh3cu( zjrrX&QYGcRKfSy=W|eJv+zh1QhvqgGSPX2(HtlT*FH%PeZ7=EF=?2KXe?AFN*#k|Y z<=#Qep28D=>0<^Nl(-lbXkC)@Qy`N zKM0th9;?=PT4;053Nn*!VAYxWSv@{!*++n*u^^ksQmoAXRd;(M;pJ32)Rd-J{Z(&AUtjO?L- zM4i`8Pgz+Lb2pgpOPsz;VHPi&uiJ)h?{)rJt;XxvsHpbe9O0FEzY$xc94aZ!1aL$- zG4!VCck6JI$`|cN%h9_};j#SpdIbNv^B|tY1)E3Zh5B7^onm6n=sKP+Yv-qg#LxN!>{P`&8FRrEv6-=owe5@ zST3(#)Sax6xn5e{cC3vOCn6TqB^Nrwem|Oc*;*(3@hla58MVrP`%IZJ(9^eNG5!g3 z2Q8X7U%$*PuLl%rZbxxJ^!S}_8XZAd__R!?Ks?FHZJd7ATn5_M;x7eapRP$%MO_5t z5|bVdSxLY-0O!#dlqolxZk<=?oeh~*Q+!POCMCAOJSow7eIU#dKO-Ev@TeY&mGP>F zpc8_(@_>sg&hc7J;QyBy97RrA2{uyb6wtKT)0&u+O<9}p9R8QApUvqv~ z5SkQnym1^^R!daH`1bwml&Ek$q=03#^vlKu`N(zA%?KISo(tvYF_)VH$1~}p_@KfyFd$BT z|Gt%8DkCm+edE+7BcXb`U0?G~octXrR!6 zsP3JHLrw|W2G9Q(Ai{yoneT-vOASqWc>R^=K``N)GL9bqnAf}b*eUbTZft(z`!v}}^~lo(bWCfF&R4ERej z6lQC29v>a`gPQo&tHA)l$0ADuhWPYU>K#<|XWRxC%JpKaP= z03M_Xq znKXDQpxstAfxu=Q$1~lkJivzW&Y( znsOyTmJO;u_13BCi>=2(1g{R_F{_^1EpNHNpjXx3(Rbwre@2tsTCNhvc!}^|Ot99D zmFwB1-`e=9>9o6ByH_MYO^uQ>>?o!5{b~9mOyr3@8pn6-`;4W5%07R_8-#xF8{a;% zJL{Ph0};5Q5sXFRLvbnp{~4II^*Yp4WQey2)ZlDjW2Dgs1B18v@e= zL@}0^RO-KfcP(VK>k~K#!@(9edfDYse|NB2S>ft@w8$@QC6h5P$h-ahD z-@ux=gNW?i zZ2-9}4ScnP4>2FWPn~WT-VRBu3(%Rf>=NrjeVC#(bqgJb3Y?O0TpXvIo4=ebA8AT# z9fKncov?5s#CCyTzGK#+2Bn6nTfuMrMH^@p|5#V%`xv4Clq${fVt0Q(uT&r&uIaY! ziNCO2LADBNw`4fZK!NNF!lqxxlsdh2Xd7crp~$QrK2yBoe?osWBTteBSTpcnW%6YN z7Ofm=rT;4!{FGuik^YoWc8l+a2R93~I7c~(5GH*rk7?I#eL0#1EB)6Vp|h~hSG-1t z!vb3^ZLNb6>NZ{Lo2jhKVSG>c-E3YgYfLP!{NWoBsq z()wy`MdA0uOqAuvhgjDjfK)~5!9xUj^9HsobekZU%i1471}MmGN+VDDl$rCoeV>TaMCzK8P748YdnB5&z?_3SwLpn_UQHW5MIPWSg9&ty2OC z>P=mKm_)sSJ^~UBgP4E6`x;?MoT~k;ba-5GRJT}-@fq%G7>m9CvPKRVaKf1%++5UV zIWCwsG?}Uk zyqC&QY&*=!Z)c*tcBm~Sl_s5I1{mDK8Q)3u2VRVc47fN$H~I{?p(~e*sdoDG@neZ? zGd-YDuPR>h0@PJ7vFo(-P+>4z!b<;TlJyiC-*UwD?(nzm-Q$AiDk|RrU@b@cDvghi zWFeVKu%2x;bwm{u;5?3Wl?L%*_GBCnsXX)9lG9SRw$#h7VIVOf>~Tv%>cR#c&8av8 z;4*(-A@C287^Y9>Rr#gDodJs;c-&&;R9WZN9L_59Kg?%`o82dtsrl#SP6s4%GVjpA z$oOS=2e-P?_v`SC|AYi8`v2VTJ)oia0xap#)>I$}d1ROGnw-z8m5ygmSlP`l<$;v& z`)UADW!qu3`5to+eK^4_RJnmtFI=@gQeF*qn2GA_VaYMnzDGu+;(>A_kt%mtQ%|;Y7oF} zi*7G^_Zx`ky*7_%kwupOCr>Th^uRqf5}5=+zQM#}@X`WfPDoEahq zAD(}4M7P(bq48owVc1b?^y)XzUCyt?i!d%+iTk*6=m;b36nA~~>cqwW`^2H9rMVSST|Yab~)ZNdoSFXi#O`bEEb+ znmYTuH$>w9rmi$_RWAMvm%fB##&jl4T;i6}_`>?ZD&V>SX^|~8r+}OAca*%_-P@Bx z*}x;9X2N+?N!_w&islGE1!+P2=1ugucV#87S^cH$%S7wN`yj8NqB0-3E{|tT;8!_s zxI^M8g%O^pM&Of%1=X(%u2V-=e z?(U>FhISZW9PZfa-#;HFvQkgquNGEG)Nl6p09t)aVO}lI5!03D&S>~bROK$`?_%7j zQDP0%R7@}vfMDQ{kj#NhIEO$CI3@0PSSrJZkO7=}v<9yDBL;|OaN_L-Dh zhtt!EFFsI%x%)(_(3^@muUWt&Dj)%}vN*uM6R5{!*Ovvyy0aHJ!~#b4-mV>5pw|)= z#rxklPXnm30CWRKETl>WHaAkGV(+9}U`D}jV03%NPVPMjz>j<>E0d0=U2D4@m%ZEH3onuz;NtZ651xNBB%Sgyo_6iz5s-R)Ki|`` z#PX!O{2IZosbzzs_2)q&sdf95$z)ALwavr7^?GRVu>e8-c$sP&(5jn-5g$eWzrFvO z#Um8~mY>UDycLzuuV2FPzUf9JtL8gelyjp--=MnvuXv_iW))U*3nU=R`(A&SVzHq4 z#mRb~Qm%u;jhpDW_lczx6%jl}CnZLQ{Ge@ygU|mKPUp3H9RIyCScjl!7601r2OJ#O z0)Q$E5KeMIYp)*-2vE+x$o#qq^ezj+5_%Hq zAQt_2g>kn>f}6^Tq?J`(yr7NGPke^4lH&*Ud2d5nzjeZmL<}R8XGg34jXw%hJRE^9 zxL97io>Ph67%$F{D&}49A7j2aoA_8&HBvN?_8$)RCmXAf><93Q;u4xwziLt#1g=Tzb#8zI#q`z$BrHLj%>+6w`GR3i0R6Wi6O3xHgBFv&4 z>O^pbmApuzpKJ7PS1*13@XzYsexhTq%bWv~+sdBc99>U*y%*Q=Rm;?QvW4OJ4Nd-X zvE{E@>|8vj88M}fmxNvFmDo@@{H^-P;)6q`vT{cOd2X8I2IIT(Pq@7$rr7#((>=3L1ui#r2hcWoRa3Jnnh& zXhRj*7(6`rL;eC5E5!5)ae=|cQOR!8iHojMG@>W_M3q!$xW`)}Ezx0OO6|qvUAyA- z0TM1wYT%xP+Mt3kenSA96+sKivoKFK;UwP|c4$fylN)jLOgubyqVhG`W2~YquI32d zyo;V68Rm*e{2CvxflaZC)f0b?4>%z)=WjG8J2R%;cb(`j@9)wKP&5#{&LhUAuOkl1 zmSRABLiqvpQl;x<^$^OZu4oUCrpyeYG_TH|hkcL#BCWjqLoKA|O|`{cFVW}Tc)TA$ zQ0PSIVTFQGZzy^1UVNNg!)4zK+`v{G#NVQ|W*zngcT#t2XYRWh$<$5xdFy?dpGKL& zpFytA@1JTBthc7yTAORFv}=NbL|?ytGG6+*IZN-nzMA6m;Tg-DLi^U>gM%Q#+;<$r z(}YXQfsKqYH0mv)$%+~7V1C~YijKgmq?j1*M9OCN_D_$#o^3bz49h-duAvlm{BnsA zqC1hHIxUzwVmj{Q*4#u*7-)r3S(1(XR^ouKdS7?^{@nuNkL-~LGSXQC-lNkM+sSpc zWQpD{V78nrye*{3TiI7u$oEO1Hrv8-peAAnWybqU0>wEBHu{gwY*Nq079!8xyhpEI z(1b}XHGm_1`%3@KPf2 z2=IdZk)wPk z^Xqn0;0i>-G-uny6@5IXj2A2>>X9dP8^p#7Y+V_i#(z6DhS+)PPLVs#PK?cmk2$SSUUKB9fNQ3mc>4Yt{ST$%%?ID6b2R3hVa^aP{u$Vuqc0iy)!*5G1`+fSmPPQiE&FHTQ0@%2?usM76~n>y zU~N;=`ij4Dp_Nf^o9&ZImwi!hZz4r@M**?GX8bE^+U(oU^($}`ch0nqFtxU%kby>f4G5>d6LjvL%sDQ zqpfx4z2{EvB^mEpy)6A~1k`_g!m|C7wE~XEo4)necOzx&QQRSG*h@5--(52I4+pWF zGY9cr?*2nw@|W02y~k@~C7GW=%Z$u{v9USCLt9y2e+cQNkWz3xR{Vj!E{J3Jg88EF1in`dt5o6v3=%r&}iF2#IX$cnis9pzz<3Ck%2*KUd65_$$ydyN3 zhAhlSteU(bSebX9%Ll9Hd(qW6;TWr{!FX-5YKnAYDSCy}Eqk)UcDX2puH zH^B!FOSr82z0xnj7F`Y+Ey+1}aN;$7ErC%=w{E+5`9*~pyqU(l8*KXi?F6|EvvH~! z1y(fiC}R|FS8s27^zA{*69WV+>%KY{CuG9s>E5EjcX?HrxFSwO0@b3m4`ddv`zi{6@|+jlP_QiS+w1t#QdfP6>01zd+qjgWxVUQ zGDC=1MbGBPtt5z0I-(Nvxf!U|RQ!^H`EBw2yLSofjK2XACoeBA4OV#^?iI+bf{iXl zD2^DhsG4;4c=inPRMNozgDJ4t7biS9nVLnTG8BSB0 zOUd>6?D7g<>zjYky{anSa9L#r)MunL_YD2K7B+bjQ<}v-eC6WWC77yq^cl(1kkgaA zn?Axa^}FS--wjmZ!;KODyQij^K{)-dS|d)L#K-ape0$cwfPh>YG042&HX34tctIlR zX0Yq~JvF7-HNX2A(9&Ks1GMs~m`0uNI5voTh@U$T@i149y0I3wd zvdH6M-jrBXef^p~Ew>EPGZ>NK?6d{u7h~1u09CnZS^NYkTC>8IYuEN@Rr&CkzU{P=s1vX z?d`3%!#QH9J~+wgfkfY=7}MVA^BA5l@qCXtk=a7?Sg5=OO>`89HC_;w8TbGCo0+a9 zU_PP(UlDXcl8E2ncn`w{etrgEz0Ym4rV^vIL?!I}1FlOz<5cUOJ@`Gde;S8)QE}l5ls>__h2|Nf-yyA4s5JGn3%|cSeeDf zCRZUz7|JXO!m{p10(|8fZ2ex*?AfMflIv4{Rdfh_htV!;e^nlIv8zHZ?VxMSCB&1C z&-qvgi0I)k9p~1lw!RIiI?rJyK(_V@CSV}Xlk8}7(hHQc9r3>b|0*?_MoSQ=Zq7EN z;I=FcA9D*7ToJI~-7q0b@vsrnsIx^Qx~}p0xk3yT=0gYvL_EN|&0#a}CSK6x9uB1- zGv@hRD;Co08}db3L0SoMD?u=m^FzDd^`};C^^hT?#6f?<4>n(-kP;U0Gb`&dJU+gL zvOyZrkt@SR9Q11CZUfb`uww_x5DYXI&A($$z9i<~Jvg*Z&da;aA}?=XXecVHjCSVe zSol*@R{s;!5I|hVJ+CNoywumIzXvX-&hQS=5OT((dTVKx#KI<_a+2I|``}ufkzZVd z%pOghgUu0!4>m~vydL-FtQzVG@cNovSb)Ugp$^1I$y(cgZRUL%)IzX@eyO6Ws+!25 zhn}I3bfsFdoAep{jIk;Bkx5Q%u(Rq5|Eb{th}N9tK40lL>(zBTLW*`}Y8s!Pf4I=9 zbKE@EFsk6+vuTf;BVHi-3ydis@`rV0djq5tSl40E-uCcg`1Qpu%lnfBk7SBoO~*}!B7LK&H9j}jToArxTv3( zsGoQfTaZpmE5n0130hU&^SMguJPpTmsE_oY)_i|~LP$Y1*6DX>AuF9k z?%Qn(H6)xT+wbgfK#&o;{SNNIN&frKoc|onOX&N<)i&WAW5b>Q&Ngo%xv29G6M#=yuZ042KE zs7>cLPWfKz38mp}onKP4#igaCNVh{Bb8|M;28gc)#F7}Wvv%0D$*HLiRV!ggZGI)J zxzhejv8wzw^h6{WcPZP0J2M~L$IKR|KO))Tf|rOIB0SaKlt-cw`@{p93)|qTh=(r| zgdy#f^#1uTfB)Oyv#W@_iRWJ`D6~_#U7*0CySO}_hSL)t{Vw?}J3G6Wi_rAU%z1F- zlX$EPZ&n%%QDhKsa}{Sa!1E&Mtwdu-(Yf`E%AM7H91-u1It}qIMiS~doi_M)F=)bW z!KI_9q~t*wh4qo(qlKz!I1{!oX`z}doUzw@A}sR<%s&9RBu5#YYhned+RzAhlo;Wsca0;@E( zPGR+^BFu_28ghpeIzfd>{fo6o(2pNYgnp`OLA)>ukS9PW@S&W#+ z=sw)KD|*`NI5WiVIJrjubq-g*ZXuY@4m6@*T6$vzTa{(20U}>dle3ghDRh>Wmgd$D)p;G($XT`Th&TN@ z{@v5#0mn^gS(&1|I@WNup_sZX78BDSKbK4N0$r_#^hZ2is3=CU#6*4^_^Bz|G|9N( z8QsrM=4aS$D(m7+3LLk#NGr2L4i}rNIhde>w#*v>-a8J+A&mpPR@pBuFL$@51P->R zsUUYM)N!#Gra&B?;=G5V zal+Vgg_!V$4M2ST$Pvw+4fobhs2*M=t<%szWB|ljA!B$`;fnZE+AGAv6Y;LXOyctF zh`C~Q?)wRmNIW$^o+0Dtx&HVsmG6hQtkejy(B@F?;EG`7o z?JxH-fSYl)dIc*0dhW2MK7NImYcI(VN_mZ&Xy&l^3+^?4htVUxK55I*f4PCG|4gxf9&9Z$^SRLR-1< z%v<#-9PlTuMFlVUHGa1SOG0_D$4ALiX$T*li(xqzEU(L&O46Kmmtd+xKx_zgAtNf0Mzi ziNbpl+I$AjwD*pWGpPt5%BQ%n@CO9DfsH~27=0?k-GV&e#c7n1ab*#OBsV{8M|ZvT^abaX7$ZN&r#kTbBH--g+6wuXcNj|Xen zAv`XSYcZoP^3fzzwBN#0h008)Y9?P3d^`;z;rreeyhrQXX1lPm@(kdp2&N>-AmZoH z0!E!7J}>lo8p4$E!Nb7{^JzBQ zFfcY7+?x6YeT%=nAm#40xx~}k?$hm`-wWJ>9xF9qfTTek8Y~E?OaZ_kMhhESfxmOzH)lN4;8AKknqP1QWiuHh#|n*2OoUfg^WXMvYTElP?$O&u zjVOJ4_>rAB$Xr1lL39HZWf;gxR;?Pwec4%v;rw7=AZ4}Gl?PUmxCy=(k(gYa9X}s3yX_-O)m!aWd5ut~X7&Dxha-(EL+1+q1Mqm*&kP{F@ zXb2}Mz)6$|iNG;hw?GsC4E=*_<;=SvS&cexV55Of z-0Axa`CG>O-=N-$iH#kAl+zX9De3ZqGSkz;f`fzQF6CT|AODecQXW!c-HVY1U(n0< zt!hx27(n5&h#40dDGA>sgH^K{H>CX`;0|DzaO2sRFA=iaA>oDpRlg7NP{grrpc;)8 z)73hkzFN9_30AYn_7h^LLmeecXh9#@F_J<3(bTh$J8pg*SS9fY9=-b*jm&YK>&JbG5Y3FCS`1oS5F=!yhGg~PYT|S1>8+@nL zH)3IAJS;2Aki(LYghUz)M#FF2_>valY1$Uz&523A-GjQrP^Td+jWUDw%=4pax*m?s zV|SJB7G?l3g+h7ZU~eB zxj>c%OjD8UKlCiLVN&9;v9SQMXfU>zCF@AYCGnuasTfK%j1s@Ff0~w=sm3~33kG!D zwi|D<-eNhPS3vW;DF# zB|7{1KC#pL3%h=FcG8B`kh!(ai2EMyrQAGH%3_}4H!?m_KfjK|t`c>#Oqux%cE0q(pIY6E&_kgDC`-eDSqlo=+w7B}Mh;#em8A z9>{eDa%wP|L+>Y~CZ)m7gM!!#6)PeNVUODPq1zKmz&|2`8|k^Z@vZZ_NR;4vSeO!P z(TDf%pTmr9Iy85f>LVpZhT=9XEKIaIaA9&{F`5_b4&|G6nlsgGO;$^xpE=Ur$6SH0 z$GJEa%VUg8(N?u>uz({imfwbn0!A>cZEPMn9mX8xWv(Bs)c-kMa-~Nd91QW^?A8VWJuxAYlAGvlh#RwXP zdRq$v0x)+^oxy+m-s$P7((Bi+tIofioSbl8Iz@;pf6CM)#HlcSCy^={d@UA3* zqJPC^kKxQkwyt{z2goG?II_1oz7^sIVg*B=Ck!4(S_X;xvS@N>d_ux1czGe{lrU!tfZ5xnc7=ldnk*gpx2_0FApw{N1ZO*ST!pXX=zG1$pWk!}o>-iGI8{xW<+l5C#p}mABdp|;rZVf%22feD+;CrEZ#RJgcVj8cCkDzcuKEP6RziR`2++y zzPpL}U{i~T)H4;)Nz&rE*brDlm(FcCK$|s>g^dlb@q12gu3$9J^fsO`qFvF#HO)Yg zZDwCuQ$84s$fZ$U9Ca+Xv2AM74(Aw4Lx`{M+oL}>u@IR%V{hTX-hoB0?ESh*rm3St zTEBu${J-$^jnOKJL!ITwGH&OSUXh@kSOGg$9>}|H5|Cq(fdLl^5!ZNr+l`Ydv1L01 zA)-%D9+(z(1RX*TV#Wp>1Sw%ZmTPc*f~8sdp#u*J^6)==8O%9!P#OII3XzbnS7U)o zcDCv9qbd^Zwl54S6&HQS~E;i{~HRkJ?2*e4F;-3feUf6eD5 zujM+UuIX(k-@SSBy;C%u<_+M2YHAh8j|PB-vz>&9=mnfs4uE7O=1Qv>g3wIdWBW%+ z#C^(;7v1p`NF@BTadV)HewZSopYB^NGaommuim26z%na={7m%B8!mr1os_ERuXOeF zI{N#=Qc_Z&HH~z%UKdw?lAo63N_vn)s09%VaLkGW-v7#vIFbRF>da}^^I$-~F)Qd~ z5b0Ysrj&MU~Se*mG|g~r?;IEfu^};U3OL-&EcL=)EnpJsxT%4@4a1!LW<+RB1^72N*)cVdai~pi!wPq!cs;0f$xKk|E!g=c6ePPE6Pe!v9><_YWy zLd1v)n0)%ga3-+hT+}%1IWhV(!~fpl@rv~9XFP%L5zp$)r=K0Jy?Z5dftA%v4lKs% z+FEFD{Oad2zvzhjVj8R!e;pz@QU#^8wUg`x6ICYU0BZqs*->?AF)k@d0p5=G$@%R& zcj%m)&M{jl?%x*&1_0}s&`4Jfb{it!jj0+4nc<3jS+_(XdS!Lq8aE7^)uFGYrQEBT z9xf|TQ5b-B<%5xt9DZByMat%7oeP@3c+-v7H#j*eDxWP40=7UfLIpyL(6TZfxHU>9 zC$@5PbL$G*oKE*XLWgzD_rH<|9uFukip$G05(MlbJMk=4XF!8Gl&>iO{|L@uEKP|n zRK;K(F<4pJ$tdpU@LG@tKXzM_kL)t5KJ`)}L4?*oBDFsO0h!C}u%})8(TXEF36Uog zOZ@Wxec`~LNOdW!r0Uf=6Fuk$>P<2+6SlMEXiKcV`TnCTy->YieDHU9USP6my? zNl=SaQ+=siDk@M9Mj0SzV4K~T$`65c#a{xcw#(DKLURJgj=5pFymp*noA8pf!2^D4 z%l3f9iP^X>_OB~aNtBd9#m=661&*5(-*Es&0X;V5+T2OhPGM4g zds5bd;RJ6Ow(4&TRX`|YjG(F}Pao|s--}F&n7vG>9G-Fbf{FJitp}xDn`0FA-2+Ak zY*<@wxPZ7~{Z4vtd^qhJ%T5hd+89cSlYdZYMw#D)p@&s$aQYYP+d@@@2%?P?yb>I|;KEV@(NKW4H3*y1^v&IcHzQZd%UD z2UN9gWZT%u-HmseFLnpD5oo5pD9S!wrk-CNJf6VEFxmAr0=LVRqty^yC8&k=BBT3a z)wKtAHfy(Cwa?c*EMn<_=h;kzc>RP9kiRHBF+7dBB6hlnq@DgZF>x2!oh?`hh>8Na ziOBei^5&x9@@EShw<&EaMRpp}uy+9K=*T%5F8TO#dCCSN+!^qiq%#Z>^0WcS8g*dd$%Pj zyHn<@v{<|F>~QIYi#F05&!l!mul}(kWifYEO@%}fW%cx!nzHRhSLgm^(3AxYGDqiL z*SL4zQr_OefL-ynnOZM zGZ(7wkKmE2A6V%}JlLI8YaT2oEe@Ux~;)q8y zCMhXN8DknRY_$OEMZC-HM5cNaCCLFYx3WBUrD0;Pj3F-fj`lC>i8D-ftlLJiE9SU( zxt|*r6VIPIu#aoQS<|DvsmP#6v-3(M=S!9gC-zOTzP|MKr+1ttGvk}kOY8wZ$BcnW zkDw~Go??N|>Urfie5{8LA0C4T7*2FSdGLE|=K8ea&DCZH!y=+0CPNCPeRQTG9d(R= zKZ7A$jeq`p1pU#7^06N({wUJl0o+BX8cgA!qvC_rv`ByyfZ*z(Ga}fx+*l1J0ah3*B%Kwtt{x zH?CWGKiq0sX5YJ$77n>PpFeC+8v)38#$vusv%Ae3jE`2*M^#{ou>i#D@mvXBfwcU3 zS&K>E#@ADf$LizEL$5F30}=;vJ&_bNfRgok!6hmAo{yh@P+%JAOa(@0$6OP=l3>l3{p^6Ekf>-pE>Scv_*3rn zmE0Ni?Hy15^%5Rtd4>*xFYT`F2hX`kGD|wR0cc|7ib0U$z~o?+ufFfzjS)&YZt=S<(GN-X>%5otw9x2)=r7Lq%DG zHnZ?VS)nQw7xLMolMW?^Itp35UlpfSt{?fa?N`a22Fik$KAw;g>V3WM@!FI#%Azx` zXU03;budxulR^CDgqhZ}XZt!<=I{-PUd6@EYYZr9aHD9YTE7bm>mRHRA-I7<``cR8 z!Xf~_7Tm$Xs2g(NX6wB6qm)B_=8PawXZLnu&3lmp#LbrWkBNzWhUS2R&bmz7*KFB| zeLHR_bF9a*wz9ILdh8qH7ru42{ku-$$%M9ny4{QVmfSPuug5J32?@+EH0dk%!i=O6 zXkq0$jJoq#C@0Yu@5z@}ykdz!gTML0qSE18~dtg!MMbZe*w|;lGx||i zpA;5`>4|Vdx`{l1nSNl34x8&@_y#l6z4GjwoY5fcF?d@Bv*MV~x$Jo`kyzZR7ynMA zt5|LOfvS17yHj0CAJ+;VANGW|O5gmrq*Gi6BF==4?sjUvkRH z%aha5(Fux(=wc{|Ouqh!&inmGC3c!G4?5SwIG@8R`*od4Q+BH7>;8|QV3cjlW__bV zb5GJY!O+l9e0i>gzSvmy_u_Vx5LBgp*^XSX4+Ao-Y;DhjbR$Fo;(^!=R;@s(%YOXW z31F@Se-C2`GIyD2RgVf}Nj+0j{`e&%W{-@F%}Bgbc<=G%!X=HbGa);#X1pXZVj6M2|~)4zWWcRF=@ z;G{?A9Y_ifj*1 zlN}=`VxB!~KgB?YbE^C=lvkxJ89k z|JL4q81z6X5}e+#F}+(~SIFElGf(3up5mOL$}|RbgkgcwSm_s#8+vqxyhukTjS;aQ zFi|q+@!aiDyEK5wX6;{7c>I5u(%vOCFKGFB5Q2b9oP@2WwL)X^wbRd@KmS%+yBF8N zS-4jQyO^0LbQ`+660)FeH@D;ykV=6A^mj5WLMS=$JEC_PlJU8lw>>?W9X zt+(GlF=(BuzJOg+YGrNB!}JAse`#6SHn`?lD=S-A2;g+4+m5P#vFv6R7Z*P$<#@)h z*ySZy1~x?7ozzEUpgj2yt)3++aM#@26p6XR>O40@($BD9r8PBsj$iaG0jDm6|wTMzx*Dcm2%HrL8>Qzb$E3ySwNYRohFP7Ueot$1i)Gj%_^o;5+&J zSi>PeB-I5XLSyuLb|W6$Z_-LoG5xeF22b(fjYphj%OA_XyL#&)Sh=|q{&t^+dU18Z zya{)U(wpF~Uqt|-y?Xoh)0G(t0y8u7eoBw0x=T@3e3ZqPE|E)wJqOacA?5hZrjo$n z?&cay&*-M6T?pO_`&x6X0@J&n#mCb$llJ?K*i&}KJrKSo1k$M6g zt_K90diQY%)zu;-OObtK7?+aIPqZ`s`SYj#&!6WQ8i8@2q*k%>3JU!|g>*r_K^DBA zTK87#8JOi>9COl=*VNWF#H+E8HZf`mq#(&xI^xwLFXC8ZuX~r2$RI&c{y2@7_!mM; zFaVbcKa*F4c(y$n^0~_3L$D%I{}3YOUbu%b(-4P7Au6G(K^7vSL|aZMLQ1}>CS}|z zQ|h34>^8@kcB6yclHKLfH??hReJv|p>a`K%C1@qcAx`Yr%yrGIF+Y7evp%!?WX;=C zv`{E;>9kecIAwVLeALH;P}}e)2;FUMy|^(D+SD4lsb1<<-l)oGtgiZd5aY96`1r^# zjCr?H4E6Or0V5aV?`$SL&PjK%!LSvs6-{Rn-bqM_CL4O69u_!s>*h^rvh=B)f|=2U zhF}*kk(_6tZ*6JHw5KGoaKvi(7qZ!o9Nq38gVq^1#PEhD184p12?Z4tdYE5Lh4_q% zl@U-p24};wmj^=p*KgmxzzX&uerx1%)5h@wj{qbqgJZr>2UxA{5S3 z>1J17Idgx|=PJ`LLLSs%H4#$Rhf*wVk#Z4I5>L7@u`PKvdcptJ$jK=x?p8hWulMvF zCg#pUziLLm-qyKclGYpwmpG@_-BcBC_VOO136}B^BmTR2=5t2HKviJ%#`|IAr%+uV zBPgDi)x>s_wTof8!d>dv+hW%Amu$F>vD@+BfdgbVHgh}%CSpgZ)z#IZruy*l#8XP9yRW2c!O+BuGS?m86)Ex~kL<;{!ubxKH3oGB zJKLwJm$N7^>*^_W__k`o|S7PjWVvGyPM@@ z*x72j@863~{oylQ?(`BwkJ-{xH?M8A2`f^nLG<+`F&^kNG4SZC2noGb%M*SDI^|xm zd(qSc1HzPRj}R}75puCOi(smK`xH>r4N7O|TvehmLaZ0mxN=rPg7MIx@g)W1rx|7q zY{;mO9Xm!qgeAS$Q}_R#L?)2;);$dqWPMrAG2{GTQ9M!Zb~HBNI%-NYGTK00l<8%5 zfcMaIxf9298BP|-nG;ed$jOLAVv*HfUNyk<4Ikups)P!~H8Kl`i!*V4zi1t*sH3fY z(e(OZ&EEl$Tc1hSRj4#03Q`R4aLnxoku}|3%#zYpJ=D~e{6-8Zy(iXwN{Q%&nRRqV z^^J{VKl3O(iXv+$w=}vF{k~aVIuD0iexn<~LB?iLf@H?)PeZQ1UgoLpECUV@yLkBE zp+jEaj<_UeIId9_*bGzCYEfRiaDf7oN=tDP575zVhfeg)ojdyZkM_#AOOOLqMOICT z$qv@^h8{%yjdy#$u2$eGnR)qE`>ewj&JVpyCaISYbq^-usl-X@-@M6wFEsQghX7ub zfz!UI>mk(E%H7G2m3#WeoxJW&tTcJ;7OK_)jY?$W9XdH}>SkXP>6 zyB8=2mB(3uHzz!Jjl3nNv|b>WK#gIZnJV|N-^}2YEM^ik{NH z^xoPQ651C3Bp06&XUOOCdl98*FDf4IG~37r6288^&wxAQmtXTqW=B$&0Sym^P?sQ^ zz+8*BV1RHTpTsQVPe0Q=3>i8)IKe} zU3e>>d6{=vz@m#%K<9`nMR$c~dF)Ms>sHCFj~ZuFuV`pI_3*fmz!(pgOg-VzuP%{i zACe8DuA7pu$R_3E zFzBhi`ECgbyA@?_iU=af1!bBT2Ru5Her7bmOfrg!3EK}lV;Z|9QOd3l}42&?YZ%JI`aiHY|@ zzbRe2b}g~$E9Qw3KGCr}jZ7nYJbM;2n&kW8AOoK+?2gWL6g;NAJxKJgQp&dIguc#q zy6UmU4m|7g=&NKWj}Wjaes+kkS>mLogU5qthr%Z<BJ1So-81{1$E$S#s?&bLy{ zps;-nW>LardNy$}A)QB=2&_MWGw|~Jv+e*=oC9|{A}vWyNx7z+d=tUP6Ody6>cV*N zpGd|(RfxI|LH)i-S0`!BKk?;lJ4v@|yY<322S0AQ=U|KdSk9#y&u|o) z@>STC{=~Ab1mQ_fX+9l&Wu4?7^P^o?v^Qr9((nVMV2)^O^6ziPNJ|>aWOwmaa}M^t zx92|QC_k;0oz%_d2SLK@1mJd1)IvWvtpFXbK$C*4ho}f>nP8=(G`N=i!C^)#Jw|Pl z?^@B<%F5@!ZT>yDWi#+^*p;sR(WI)fs3{87Ev)V8e#E%&9Z|3)`gL>9|y&4%@SI&9<(#~vz&X5c!SKJ z3Wxx1%H+R`;h#Qnt{u%$cb_{&k5pgddZ@~it7y=R!ETYjCCA-Zk zS6_rb^{h9Yj*IDQ+y4{phrLL~B^8SvVqr9nG zK7tv#`a?f;Am%-A@ZgK}^|Uo^SG;Ik*|=&ll^Bh1hmx{gpcfTNUuo8+ak-k}omkn} zta08&Y9^PWm!(N&dz0fEg7gQodt_$Sy;d-nZ&BaKRyMw_FKz-`fz>uA->{{$;n9+gh`F`x^PLvu7o*FGnND1P^0Oo@+NdC z#JG=fRZ_E=!-DdP2~jE5C8aqHjn^MJZw&E^+f51n!oZVlJuKRq1ZlCk;E)iVp`Rhx zf6%P&KYDbd*&I9955R9wl3EH^UF10hTqepLUL{xdAcEsoc`LEh-c~R@KR>X`Lrzee zjZ{Kge;L*p#)Ivj^r)|!-Z1K~<8?oH`nK==y}F9K zA$~Y-Y>8RAy=U2--W#r|>?-Wm+V~<8Szoe|@ zy0_;P??*Q8H+k09)=_bBTDRTs!0Ks9|K4YoVopo4>ya59W@AU@LN8;MKgEE*^rOpi|P{<1A1;+#A?O|S$t zki>tT`AhvW9^148vgI->vQv#pV-*7lbh-lh)`OI!!;ZP!eaHs2K9dg*56f$4WU5c0 z53!1@{+S&MCF{y>_t1h|=M%9bYhSn;-43_fpqW+ow^FG*;<(b*e)4umha4PMAyTHTU4TKV(m zo9pE`zlT_KenU1Mb8+D_qhO3tMfAhWuOv~qek#w!y)5KT`4{y+T(LUnb_$2pQX=R! z8@HI)A-2~eNzTncIU7>0i+=j_NwaMmv1qoUTxSrYAly-#+yF4A#i@!MY-oCAojci< z)K^P);SS-a+=u-reG+MQkNwR!4up!Hy+|cd<-29~geNG9Z+~^AO+}$#85sOebuZRB zdpH@M=6~DT`p_Ionm~+sFniJIctp&4I|O5vKsrGdr~QiNrG!q;%*^bJslkgI6^tR( z7p#@MJJ>EOs(Lj32tE|UbSv_}9@kBBKY_^?{;n{t5I|p{Zx$~@Z`$~9PeZ;$$dCS` z#uW=&!Gd?c9^vHVeB&ta4QD8}XJseg0j+Zn=Su{9r`HqA)ce3Ym5_B1 z4zBkMYJC~jdG}};n<-82yswW>8E*96NyA*z?r$k==bwSci@{yKWja;RACuT9y%}!U zNTqm*5O^iZ`Yk7az80YK;YP?GY9GkA3VBt zKf5ePCH$z+`G(%@&@_P2j6&GnWA)fC2eI8CmE4~x|upOo8o(rNMjN3{@b zq7TpqH1~ZVo1~Xw-`}U)bMH&ZHqsg35Yc9u^IV(E_s1V{4T*}C6VubLO?8vCLpU?3 zckd?4@0@Uol#`Ql7z(|kn{9CvOs(X~Kp=5-G#)rp1c@F4KQ6u8vn~5X&7)t9%E~ZR zXYQU0hR75eu7lKSs_y0wQ<*CVt$+SBI6O1mALsz zxNEqVF*6!r3@|#f>Z4?zI>wLf?+^o^@Wbp(BZS;l!4qC5B3|9iYBTaNq}esYVI}PB zcFaSr^cAZ-yT&KXR)g1Fwfrx}2=NP_&+{2oyXw}KxIfi*tZ6G`IF*s1Uu4@bVfVtz zixs`4=)r|BytT+#0-rVzs3zSTtYb(*yqND+lUO6Bmp>|WAWvpxWfeMhZ4ZaQaO2Cs zzUmNzFeP3Ak>{2}zvR+>&-|)!tuI`XSsWg;S*|=Ky)j&@c)#^EMYq6r<4@l$vT2VT zDNl`qvCA_;mgVL$n`+j*{5)c4@2Z|3x3kN&+) zcYOQ;gHas$(?$eOp}Sg>r+I&aGPzDPo$9e3$EcUksfOqo>&vE$e@F_@2bXy$Mcd{F zYg}ioH%rTOScs9`=&3<#F{QWwZT{RR>oc`?VsZBr(57 z=RsQEl_?rI<*qz*H+uJW8S%4=PIe>pvg#BzS>q_l2N-PLJ?RFh+ENM{zn8l;bg% z)&F}Y(8EINYPPS_O3R(o++wc2uC?zJBfF&P?`GlQ5??l#e?JptWaRnXF!NDAe=*Bx zYwY+^+HGGV=d*0Q^Ey0TH^z-ZB_9i+1;@^1NHwHPuUhBo)z{T*^^`6V*rrOH-)8G( zFzN;aB`$h*(d1C}KH_>o!9*UgC!rnUgkO>8>X2n_CLOK@X6p6gMHDVv+ljVdaJcPx z1>hn5zVDt1_|!g>B9Svy#GD#QHoEY4;t{D!ptoxEacQWz3Rf@&TfMB)uO#&mr?og$ zOq@J*>VSt_gYKRa7PLlp2>=WiDt8Mr3CpuESJr#(?3xX)y?vZJV|VdmyYKwn3x&le zI0L!K6e<@22;(Q>t3N2k<@G0JTj_t@#Vo-}6=-i5=`JqTsc6BYJzKUW zV-(Og2G*Y4sb+D8=~|vGw`JkNo7nMstT`ZoC(x9NljmPZqnu#Rv+g$rs0J) z?_SxATkQg99-W-+|1Q^6}++OZcfSEA}aXNfPkhs0A9lCPreU8V^HpU8_ z!n8XB)?(q}U;6vvc;EA#wfk+am-5{ASNP46D8j!J@yqI5boP8j1d==sK@Bn1gNjiI zG;x~XIvqXz?reERlHu^?=2CI@Vm=U`-x;O~Q2TPNII2MW^zrwoA*~b->ADe`p{Ju` zzs8tp)V3sy!#X@ZJ#7W)eKm&J)q-I3^6@dP3g94Fjh(UVdY|3x66Q+Wf@#wL&Z7E7xOn=FYGguE8&wSe!$Z08}T#=~(&Zgjr+k z?&juZo>L$5D9k6Q!fJWE$c2?&4CivwKHiF{vskgHsr>M{{?)79a>Qo-PY`pax)s);jj$IGs80d=onF~rz!Y^-=3aP&8ds&JfuUymk9@sVLVz@Rzb>@ZNYMtA= zt{u5@T{O$g%XGTT$2RD!W84z_mw5yQhXH9xPM2&mOo6jCu$SlcS4?Uig)BqLdIR_- zab++>`l>(NfC65Do5{Vu_+N!33O{@S*8NH5$f%~pO4|GCcN|NM^13)pwGLHgQvX_KtD_ywRd)%eTd zNYUoJ2dR#+vdZrGLND*VRvr>h^Qe3GOPapXrVmHkzfR?i&b{5S_heY@)wBBhinoz- z$R=q#Xq{LT_emQYyQiJ3OG*bi@}?J*D{l&snjWe@_?(3>?d9R_yrUu*Fo_oENSYjt zk1DUx3slVGsDW3RMDCMsmCWe`U#4QlMuLl{v2^3X@4sW0j7?~lJK_P9HhhiJ+5QAI_6rU}(wq@AIES#?vrS=zMu-a>v!@wT4Fhizgm z6$MHfZ5^V0X?BJwE&oUtR}miGoFoBR>a_3Xj~pHts0UjWnOF_pJ6)I0fGlg|n)`mE zC##Lr3Kk5Co^&na3+KowP~a?axQd1 zur1qiN?X}6ibxrqLye6MnA)0>(}=&SLzkL!Z|P3L96 zqZd{8wRJe2mFg*)dJ)pAH+W95ZvR84zdsn>M@4n~^yxqlV-c>Kk4rKH(Lo-GbDUxN zgBl|8Z{94MZkT%TkBpK!TC4i@&90VUblEn3wPR|3^sg^%ig?~)lG8t{^KXV)y2KQ=SlHAo+fM&wAfa~nbU3PM&rB^JTK!8;#_T-WIdU|9^*c+lKDQEw&1 zW{$SGs|lKhDd$rLl@l$Ni@u|-!N#gpjWj593`S{#35>lq3#7@3p!T<}8yZUM%%?^b z?WzvhZ-hjlYDfEW!gAj0!v@sXv+fPf1S-Lbr-@ku9 zKq*d~ayiDMiMwcwX&wqHN}r0ptPaC-aRmkXx<&e2w_P1wlkpZ&7u6*>t<qD;<75 ziWKM1Fvu1jcq7PK1Yeq8QgTIXMZOo0`!EU?Nw4g_0UkVn+gx3p2AzX&-Dp~AMR#9o zwj~SFpj%LC@WHib-?{buNXT#nh={zwU3Thb<*P84VM;Vz*EW=S7T!38?;96eemXZ4 z)&vEsC)HF`$}w5p$E3o!PZ>G;YK<68UtAdDh~8c9L3%B|>tFwU-0(y<)d@jCe^?7V zgK&{(1ha@^#=+;j(_o*_H0rtIDH-M!TU&o-FPFP@ivt4NzF#(ESq;>d#Kq<4Y7>5- zpioj(XFq5cIr#R3qwbZoHMujgCDB8xW9DFB#KV8Zm$!fb<`%U7mzl1YvWG=lzj4qX z9n(mI3YPnP_zd!bz%{8G8vcU*X1Skb>k=}cR+y4ORbY$}$pTXL$X|L*O!T?Lhi4oS zxx>MTxa~J00kXy?&C2Whq-SnrwsJ|@={0(UuO@BXLT&*srmk57TiY|F$cc|iL@mVP zerMw_zjgR7tzt2icZy&Db3;Lb`&UaegXlY8SovRGAlovIch_8MtAp zHuuUmoZBEYk&1VBk66FO-ler$<`xh4LnsXa!1YeBX!!}!E~MNYLSzj)DNKYyB@KU| z%-GrU#+ZAuq*hkaxVl$z0x3BY(QBNnbv}nJcufmyP=GnwP?FtU^Me?8AY0o%!@QAj&2HFGvA*2@!)b-hRoGkiPPsw z?`0`P8()m^@?<&uBep7VJZtHT>(=J|*3XazR%*tnKc>61Si1Qzkv~h%;Lc2z>y``F zuD~L9Q!SFIv(NolIU^kdLqJf_z`j1J@XMkq^Xa7h8(#4uL6iCaX#ql%;%0YOlcqQE zA(`R?MPik6rlFn|GtXA`TN^9 zxnXuhL@$?S(gNbP&mH{hSjZe!`@Hr3qC+8K5~4b6v$*kNwYRC{dcF!%_UKU0+%j>V zWN@kcHRHf){bz9YTXk9{afLF(Ka$ep38_pcWo9D_tKDS&D~)rwX}W^+S1-SMH>kY5 z-3sLaAKyTP)8x$IkYAq6j=N$S{!;E=IZ9f;$@>wzs9U6r9!f}}89|kH0!vbLKhM4@ z`E&G>o*v`uqecmujwyx6ep`!Oi`!4As#{5X(dFxt{b%^5XHSud@%ryN4TA^sf2%Te z(oAcX6ZrJLyai5~J0U4pyeR3NpA3yj8o4{A-i9e0n1Kc;sk-W=kO6pIlf%3zL8ETI%J${_4 zTprSV@4|;G9pVz+ULOV$?b|Tzq;!3{Y@dacrzW2fXP_eMbH?nsBUdP{T)SFjetL7@ zbzthUiLlz`P5SCL&T4>LI$esuh3oM#RO=bh7%e<(4Gd`i&|o$nN}*`f^Zj9Nbo4j= z24Z0qIxcRBhg*1$+$Du{2?nFvnXM<*+w0zoJ*~QFT?AncjxMR4AFv0m`#lsC6a_Qi z55qL)350m7^P^={f(0d@{4rc+?oxSSKD|-uE=!nLsc338@kfgKnpb8e=@hDqhF>18 zsU528Q%-9+ZnNC9t3_UP-|mtrvOUes#M##S)GT5{e`p0ZHg|GLoem$Y)*%5B**f*N zGn)m@K3H_$%;6P%#GQL|wed-;;FW9FM)frT|IbUzEMQq;u5dB$m*Ph?KkZ{ZPP1w1?sQGa&vM#`K7z*UKGk>cGh z(k3caOyD^cKk^m%Rop1G$nK^)SbbPFvO_UUBt=pDN-pMz*ydQ^&QJnvLn7}861 zEHJ173mQ6z=JPnlOz@wBFdZcAP9x_9dfe3LObHUR8LBUKbxqaJ{gyvfq>L^VFQi4d z9aX|aUb=41MUo75pO*H_tm6KrJ#gS*%a4S_#Jq`tQr4n^%wcnEyZhZmohh=SvFXE9 z?=5t^ZoGXcq1_{xMLX0iHqOl@IWZeZTv%ZHShy^K^8q`SydON-CS^O4wa5L77F81J zBAD^k+U|>F$F1)=6Qsn!^peDd6QHK81n;w+8Ue28P4(dHiSzzc&z5P{Mc*gQ7JbP; zb2gn%g`AcaJ#6;2A=Y<1Y?99+eSkQmi2Z<_Bp}-8gY&}?Y2sTQBj;e`LY`>R#oTi_ z5KU%qhwztLJZM?8!rAS-bQG<^76w_o+}yb-`B6zP%nvFkX4rRNR3JaN2U1X-IC4Al z8co8^)OTIvz5>4*lwoo(=#+IJ$^ib{Z1Lfqsfj7O5S&*yaBKL{d|iG$;cKV zt9-5G?n0y48N18re8Mxgvh+Nbty$}&*Z8Oy_y{tbfejGCKukSkPyXBN3@3q2_I;1v z6>rX6m!4R>-@itKuGgB#bKNUZk!S7(v_F%BDiZaIFO%@kmB)bXfkNRz&#>&4-rSf% z?HH-1sY!=hzHrnCZ+^U~2r^Wgq{E-o6Uy(M!~^j$P$|W2?GtOEeZl#{{tF5PMXTtBvXT-TH+Pj_=TQxHbuKP0t0GIZ zqvL4Z#JOqzkg?To`~5C=KUulM%$ zqFzAP+vqxJI0HI`;<>J;80Xy-3%bX^Ix=s0-KD?e> zu$vUy3YKSuMbXUli_DKm(sKm}n4>`g8u{#hiV~o>angs>Tvr2s$5ok~xslnr-ZtBe zOs`mfW}W+g2`Jb0h@lHTtWmEU%=!}IBkxoMq`Ax}9JbCrIhY$_783Cb0M9r*PiHWC zX99tTh;?V*Yxag#0(g-`E*gXQrax*{=)hMeydtF2;>S%P#qWc^?u$5G*!6SJnn~0` z1<@7DJ^X;;UP?vsVmHFgdpXtk-<^NLPXR^525?%q){O^6Ceu%6L{j13&RlsvTrRU~^Q!u`x_--gU*QWB2%kfEbr!OdhC+MqYj5+$fqT&GjAP`k8S5g6}Lx3)pauaDCQi0zq z(uk7acyd$jqobyGp~dJ9Y9SaI!qZg~?8U}qq7-T5%3|xCeQ17t@tRasmz*naK>`?l z3x#iDok&sbZIVunL;)>OR0S7-tgo~IQVmgln&y|v@-tjyA*FHlyKw$CJ}dtxq*cni|xF) zrNqhC;@FE)PaI6kTnP13gxuRQm~W}|C#A1p zn!S$(Rq(@_5g!xvvjkY-!&L~cay4@LhLt|?8F zJr86|xxLa>eI?YrZFgO|w-p*c{j7Z$nWPF}GGI=yYI_MtXe&&&YH)tMMU7hWIjO$w zIkEhH&>T9PU!|&X>d5(tUuPf)CC!lhQJ18hl%dOKnBs&S7h7O%Jd9Ke?@-?@-=oCi zrsg)~rr$%bqE`5{qFkchBPz2`hCi_C2-*FcLTB>!qtAsTSw^N(JixQqs4Un3E=j^~ zySVuuJ`Cv2(n}FhBX0@SAU2=S^=j&%-e{QRptvb?$X{}H7s=ZLhAD{rE4QQ+UNS*Q zxO}sr|H;;KD+#*3>JyauJPAnhAuE(dC&1V9cw@)8r&7!^mZY18M4zDtXdkWb1u^uYYpg#RUZX zP@8wWCQ)~A7r7x4X34wDx4GF~^LzQgM{J$4LAxm!Fr#^EsOm(d?Mg-*d*yL9Hl&$K zLRKn!LuZ8AJgMetu!bJDsLe)zaI8iTFJnn-%hjYK~Z zMEmjMPb_`=PF-$C18l=6hDb``bBLw!>2Hyfs8OW>Mg+g20;+-})`5DHGzbJYh8RUi ze!wlr+0>n-WETV*@(jeOZoBr*3PC(4wiLH=8do2LseFoigaz(sO;90fKYlE>Pip>^ znl?azS!i7v(T?f3lNoYMQ{);zi?ewJ1Pt$Hx3kR8#~H54rD(4ew0|fy-j%aq*cC0( z_o3KJ&<)KZRS;Od1HwVNoR<`Hjzvu$st#$rKZKb2NI%(H3~a#C=yT-Z5|FlF<8(QW z^8<1a!wiRC&P$yN$WS{u3rb9c&xB6aP_doi3xbo^!}zAa@xc1;(H#1}WP7+|&~*Sy z;0!hGZx-37(XPhB%NvR|P=ljL>>^+U15CG(Wx1nF>#kMIa-#W@TM1r*34=%G?yL)s z>^Lhoj^b$Tf*`3lT8>>Nd1dD09JFFTaamDu2Hy=Szx}vzHf|7pj_fj6x4Jo;YRd5_ zZeFy<3x(^%bS|Yzq;xn|=rdX;o5u3%lL zk35dIoXznzbumzyJk7EDt$IpfSec4B6F>#r>t=JAAFK^ww7h`a;k$UsR+8?DpZnj?goCT zbms_$U*k~D{xx+EBaa1_ft(`pi*^&qu*g>2fREh%%C-VBzls=y>kRW2fk>`pl>Vr* zs38_xP`b3POd4Xh)aA4f2(wsyHv~~PGL}6s64@w%m7l-%&`dqcA!*`Sh^9=>tC8M8 z$JxgZ3qB>hzR!xZeT2>vKWkYiVx#PZ(DtEa9GKxl3Zc+{eudP{O#BQ!t^9rZDcYv? znAL(?A|@v0Di_`BT^$vC#x@hr9>e83AiJ*^zhiyE($y4<_5x*iWGJH%@hSry z-4}ARDef7h(&NHk6}hWErxPFhA+Fsimv@at{r6VoqeH5~Hu_!oW^XNt#!A6$9foMa zl$@(ME!{nWi<5)9%86_mdo0I#rSa%S3Wh~q^Lc}Id({s91v`YB-%|31kR{PKMlkR zGLu8$mw!OsAjPEZ1oJsGfoUZD9-X!79?RDt!cbwgpyz;vXGBHhQwsu`n%<#_CEA&NXYFly&Onl{K(WIyi>`uDw4&y1NFp86FL0Q7Q+L$D(|&UDL`ZdKpZ^vT zdhu-uIW#yPf0|&@mlKxlMw?~YN~&&3Q+5 zP*9K<>NVoikf5L|`uhJ4REIPnncs`ZJvT0nHm0i@8pjz;liN>`Ym^=cx&t!wS4P=& zC`=3;dMRAy!n$E_T?^lYLT!fs1$Kn5mqAK{)S~+SmuIxP3zOBUgav~?Z}(oFy;F^w z>5TI6iQr25VM3%?NxI+A~an<mjw!+jD_sNoDKayok7f=Qde;qQF7@vJCkNeMO z7Cli=vhe&iJ1B;lNz8iS#dY$NiXJE;s!)8o@H<{7rIvSBgu-eAc=acKW?_~#Zao)P zU27W~MOD>>1R+m_i((hj1+VC2E7{Z1(2yUqc7FVvF?Z5M*TA6G)L&|-!JO0*1&aYU zQi3&>l=d01Bl}rEnjpFtAoNE=%PW@>Mghq$ze9xB*uD){gy4L=!TCZnz`95uYe~9E z8DW(m)X)zQ_t`Re?46a*t@nuw%{p#nV}q(8M|D1<#)rfEh{mm=;w^c=#FhMPRY#qw zfZxY{d+F)nLB{Ug`~A2knJHOP#SIva_#^n_ZNvglRC#~)HCjMVS@p<}+PzL(4BBGgCDmY^xh(N)8G%S1kHfY1BUx# z>bJYc|J|{k`$%pJtCKe;!aqiQ4*0>4LXf1kHRsHD8lZoZOeC)RW?OC@}a<$&JY z+#L2HE8NTFqZO6y?6PjQ$3VvT-**xlisdXy-FfTjr#MpWvpk8@+vU3D4537PiCg~Jpx@_XHF?G#oCd=$UpvZlHzO!d^;3u~KAkIrR{R#CEOC%WB>d>6~ zD*GpC@^Ekz!7hTVZ@+`%{lipmABY^j^Xq-@Z?$uUN!wtG`kKU1qMkTuTtc9uq<~Mt zz+BzA6VhFxSqngu97f|pZpzBaR=ZK#^A_PB=snnIY=b_HwP?L_wi)uNc|RXXRT9FR zR&pW0!V~h0IIv|_x(ZMX4luqf#14bM*ignC8on@z!mfIl1X*fn-^kJ{?Be7J{yDf- z6w4-He)n%WE5f<<9#Q7u{Vg#hH8N?>tAl$PR$K-|S|Ptr>O9~#z%4!D_FcUg?Xo`O z?;4BdSLyCca1s*#zm*4nQ=QZz=Zu}`8^PX32XnT|mCL&!KK|6=X+9nO1M7%L<@?CN z)B^MXU-8}hY8*P76=4PfCnVXP%zkc^pgnzW@1y)$egR*kHy=T94fZK3wb-DvMTu~6 zkEmhq-l!u-Qkx+?{NuV|3i==RQAWfW3KC+AqgfL!5rRN)Ra3JZ5mlDtvKm<4u2u6+ z*e62D>7K24Cs|Z#FXfaTvGu-4&25_pn3DV=ZB=i2`@-@4Y|Ms?Mkt@I{`XCH&kVl# zWV6r<`w@~Af|YK6EYqpvR5azIV_0tZSK}_**k-eYQ=P5S=ScAKkITvWxs8K^Ik=Ns zv&=(`eA3|Qpvj{Zd(fgl?$mUA+wKKV78eJN8&kk>GLTV`LN3Y07D!HKo?SosMC~sw z6Nkg?QKNq`%Kw1m>J8sDz@GO$U5pXi)pUVE?C?d-z~-dz*rB02LZQ!=XUW~ur;?B! z6MA3l%K0zS1b8pQRESJFi5{pKI_E*VE%-d|f_zQwgpQw=`N(YHwH_>GqO)$-Hpj3aoM%c&&hXhZr#O z5csvbm(6c~y2UL5lB%6_H#M2@(z4?%Nfx-CL+SBtuqC32+=5ig zWVc`Vu03V4-7r_6=pVozzH695_8nd4Es04<5^q96%rW?x?f*3O-tk!X{rk94RwXOS zrbs192_+<>NTRaJC?nZqXH_IbJ4GmxBqOqCAxR~~sbpto@2v0f>b^d|$M3rTxvwjo z&i8md$MHOl<2kl*%&}wF7)wU0L+(iR{C=0;422$}?j`n*(?CY-~UsvkH$ zxA&$87}(EliOd|1C;eJ4F>FeoN=4xneu zF6a;vLp8q0mMzaE$1II2xK2opizFTircz7L$>Z}r>N8*1B826O#h~^%2Q;q{|A&r_ z>hf40es*FPHdP@<`0veZ)PQk`_NZyt&4{kSMz%OsQ{7A-q=$3+q8~66h42}yzu(j; zlUPPuR>HHo8KziEC2wHibQGH`yo>#K$9iKzB@0_6elf3}CYGeYAs2ir4uj)JyIx+f z>JIZ^ayg!*v7w{nk^)Ld`0(2cABAZtqr?s2i{KY>UO!aPhB`lUciJG*^LeYPL8x zjvKGdRV;z$pK-e)HXY*i6Gns0^zHC?PtWVm4}*b(u94ApIT?-ovuId+)0(W096N4> zGE-uwI!Zt}I3tUQq-DK7S~ub5TWV^)`}dr@s%*SyEUGdnJtDxY$e;R)?Fqg!o1i58 z-tStlq*O7y4Bf*s-Q+=$lIQ110Y_8^Qg2jG-jJM~KrMY<>TwipU3_2A9NQ}9<28}T zL??~X(v2d^Aq0u_>fKao(*f~rJ*)xK4}K&n0I3}(CiS*K2UeBXb5e|haFDK#Z6*NBj;PyX%X*Ge=SVh+DUkoIuj^KGy!zE@#7{53|HJC#K*vUDsg_5r{6zd#az1ni$tjw=Yd%APY1C+@s(*K;M5d z4aDuQM1R-w75#!Z6k^8HCIX*qP~yqG0fyL4k%9Rg3RSJ0(5S0Um4G%t#ctY`=|e<6 z&|*_zYstX4)1MK%($W@|UR$H=P_R~2zGX4ZO#=JsqebRMfiqvUiX?LAXngN$Sl&J> zq5kXy3;~V-P#|I^MD~4A-NqpYuDvS*T7Hs=iOJ6&^b-A=nwnvo?7vE25C)gAbwpMC z?ECFTozrF^B`ps^G|b8De!dMs8Y(R={Vz*k^fip=g@n>F!4tQ6`i;+~wRBkFBC@$8 zu&1W*yXYC_RpX#SN+QL}e&hVeUMz{WW93b!)22IKnm&!aGfa$(<55SPqcgLO zq}0%0f`JcJC^+4?pr50N5#Oo$Wm8;SR4uE&t1ZW$E>q+%%JO6yG31+>eRTLW{Y7 zQ(E8JBA%Ma`!hZ$jz>W``GlKC^P&WVbPGU|v`%>*XDT<4rf}s=W2k_3`b?uyF*G7b zc(a9#9}qF_-rw@2ziS=0%1ING-rO$D&^qP~OhMoG(OOcK(x^e@m#F;gDc(Q~V(Vd) zepK}`2G$S}M-byb2qHjQ8_5Q!!jI8lCh!euT!FdSh7;Y1!u+fL(%6QpnOneN9*Z9~ zZ{1pzo+^f$auU__S5H;Hd2P zB94bM(q*z{TQg3l>fHha{t5gEta_}(J^&0=A3ra*8=Ceeyb74PYyb>;a(V>&;hUSA zMGz5{QyL{`uTu+|i2d~Ay(6HBN!X7<56Sfkb5Ad6r<8(ftwg+sOwwn=tbvOsPX?_QqHdXNDI)I^l9^r+^ZffBZ z4ikUz=v+V!I-@`taD8Mm*z5kNEqPB^q&RC=N-TlcJR2gnZS5eDIGu#>0!xP~ zP@z9!bmS}5taaoF1JXQvHZ|ulYfZj9Jtz$juG2P1*%{Nwo*IixQ(CQq2G0-5&U}6V z9w_-P_^Tow2MeM?*tgz|j;?{vpX%Gg?~G4E*@^m;`eYvfbx`kg=O6QW)2yiE@zII? zni z4x(UE1J2WfiPYsbhum5geI+wNaa7=6dB_dTfZtcy9gErIq}YkV>(lNombo{i^Bvc+ z>#og1yLbq8v_+Ac}K zQVBNuebJNI6ncY1HYkzmtki>iwRP>uAf&%v8Zhc7TZjgsE2@ zOPBPdD2b<79D=XLv01aOr^bLh?5xBs8eJz9oegsfKB{{UnT1JmZ8=(O?y&Z4r(=Gx z4IJdwfm+0-|0wcyS4sL%h=+NrPZYhAO50`RTie6R%EVj_Ho1)0<#Isz@ZkZh|HB9& zvK075C<2ePZA;E@+*>325~EZJJu!|^YGdc{2QGYLyUgH0NmjnVxsCpmAT_v{?}txt ze=p#pV*?iwXj;u%qf{~})9k2{ZDl?8{gA<1rI<2%2+7YIj;vZa;%o|Dg6U3@$Tp!u*Is>_B$F-Bw*XEEhcbUy$-me zb;1jD*_gv$7T9dEja-CEu=2p}&-KF>s22k2xWnm+O=^M7z)L#Ul-|=xI(sB!z5Eyz zxE1<1rKc&VVp%~lYTw2Y$`r1aMZHmTX(nVTVDnfA2oIqc-AOrjsnqpT?f?}6ycY*} z55)n^_O5fO{dV=wLzr07_5d1MH1-*A-GA$e6L>EHn^oSH77%Zn(^Ayy0G`A1XK`no zI*?bx&eAT;qy{Fy0vSzsq~Kcs z+-mtTxX)P_YFLJ=UE26aPkr~&!Cg!l;I2M*d-WEEgHjs? zAOpF(y}|9!h{pIdeTTi1L0UsY!=_zk0nIHvbO>BHsMjvVHE+HpU%y>idfGVK$QO0< zNZGl@0`}>Qjh?(2K#-&y+vK4Qnh$U|vrWW+t|}IYkQm?i2J3|qD&m=2ZDF&%;zkOA zjRn5y9Nbn?@^^5D-98@FAef$N4qh43cz*lr{PCAqT&Iz|1ppDE&XE!a?_v{|hv^j+ zDz5uuQf7RL*A*?F>=YUMd{qr~5@Z>-mqu5X)8ROOXm+2?ck2?3#OJ-n>cL=KisyhMgPqulR3f*Al$Q zQ8wg~UzBc?>TWoLu)xo>ca{2<9Mn#^dR@T5P`3(3)}Uyc)g%lz5TTv|6}u}|i_(xf zcuiyY#&9)sgDThZ3i6X47#CjGOGs`l{hc`^tf0`A=%5Zn5N^(Dx;vV|`~}mw+AgBVaJ)$Xe1n2Q)4Ohc=&=Jn^kU0 zciEeEaro2s_xA_b%4Gfc4BhS#4UM}hUZG)OcWQbh__|k3m;Y}pPS%k)x#43tI5^C5 zTWV?C+`BQJHfTK(zkNHUg`vz$1mn2KOZ8Hp zv{T!+VhdRSz*Ax|Sht<#5Y@!{HIiePM^iC}=_CIU?XmSn#*@azTBw|e+Bx~uL}B|< z1c@N5qAU!*KEX`{qxVP_Gn~P}x~(fG#5lC!^N|IZ00&Pcg<%!-N7LmAF8CmJa+qME zz{M#kknr;54Llkkpug7uAf(a0;yy%|S zW+@2<5N+AYeB26kQJ;-9xb54vb)rA`x&oXAYj4V|vd(22QL8(|q9j4?!y2h=xF2F1 zOm!hLPW|76Am#4|8_j>d#PO zF@#5n47^_X?F}WCfW?LO6&Q5Hf+yys;zo~TXvx7v&!c6(I97{)i; zSd<)##4X0v9)>(wH4N{&8hj8y4#2co<|w#^1|Xm$#-tlF5EmVLYmW zEDY4W7e1=8dp_y22_g!-pfNTEn%e|mm>yJx=`Un0xUyKkzZXlnOsK#cQp6QPsIuQ| zVFfp(2tGcDl_BUMCcdB4*1?;HI-T%80lrI;AICs{gG?B%Y#UAhd8;yE2v6y8nIBaR z^W=Y%Maeowtx!KSok;}#5De4_(;N!G$1y_+RE7o{5>XPMaL?J`$;vVf6bM{zvIIHc zSn|2O+;EH029Ak43K8B>96=1KEkO66B4``x1jL*}Xa@88VlP*OZ^q+OgWwR%xI0(` z`!urJA~Q^oH&)f4M80ZO2Ya!JTlp~KgAK_vpdV8s{m z6+$xtkmN>h(psTh`GM`aixQ!al?3N3OXj-P#Cmoy-c(E2bAJ&C;fd`Js41KfnxIU2 z<2KY3@M;#(|06c(0h7mc@7w%5sw2dquit4vBcdaL0z|S~_>E*Wx-&a$zC4&RDC9lu zk-SN_oY*k%yWMAU9a1>QzxPSNcZ#+4;4H6uAs^(kK+Xn$x=I;#e2}+k$=Qkc56TO@ ziZ4cH5W^?~KR~fw#_DQbInhHngyKedn830ijkz?$=7E++x>sNr2+FK75NkQ*6LZoS zadC0G>m;Dh)83-K*|6;&N7X8 z%ns;>32_s>8Wp*xt=1L`i}UwQ3qSmI8zP4ng$gDkEB==~`1RdlMx7Vk^kjp3GDe?@ zUlqJj_~Ksv?Wmo45f5duUSIs4({jo@tM=DphcCyz>^!3uU4LwiDxX%vS?Bg|_bXPP zIHaVbbX%*l%+POk{q(U_BX(VV^PW>TvX;J%&K_(R2+nP9pPh6o%0VdzchfNx1g&*J z8i6c36OeB0+KLQm9tEbiv~4biSQSM zM3*2gbKS5;v;+@n?(bhVKE8DU@nZMkU6FN5L1WaR^~jlwfScFoF?D@cSs4VQHM)eW zL`tT^L2%XqS!D)BGq#e7Tk;IzQXAJs!2#|G0)S>1gL5$Ay;=S9qXwyZr?zi^RuZw_ zl)IO{zLN%605vRa$hWW3cF|CQonQ zKu$7X)Ym4(M*DBEDB~(6ovVGzN>Q}Un6CWgB2=!oH&{HL;$J8zWvIB+i$#w;a#H7{ zvyzdK z(KUMjzgQ9YPE)d21E(-kYYT$GS{)|Hu#P~p?(d_#gL7A<=ffB~tzh*mb3t`GzYKM~t0 zT){U8kRn1y5+@g?C2ehO^}9UG=6+_Jqs2`5jUUAlqUH}Z7Vp1QCf3>V^D8{LS|pDP zL*~N7{%zeQc-RfJS^@63M~8ooUJN|fTI$-OH8Pvj|O2oqr; z85v4loSztq6@+^8HwMqy8HJ4Y1{fRBA0wy6{h2^U6WJn;v^+T(w{jLK@W3wwM_$Dp zp~@;MfqOqmzt>minSYg*W(7AF><5wYs=in^&`|XE`$?_qlBSZ91yvP*u8%?qP6eDY zJQlNA_~;=nud5HiA>EFpkgR2}?OC;p(bWEhOh%j8t~}x|(-*{L^6!{>!2DKyz!mos z)LNaC9?G9aY}(M(*QfmM|2q7#q=eWD#s5Q^lwvNpC!%qrmF&uF)PSoL8P5#?@tXuEs?7VX8)_QE{gnkW) zuw`l^cBC1Cmx(n;pr37u6zz2-o1#w!1$}??MgP~={&&}$y=RRv#)i)Z*teP0eU+7! zyFvZ6v9;a3ajgptlaP@}z&gJDQ<6Xln(cB{9_ZZ}Yvg7NIF(S>KOSbfcooM8u|)_U zfYL1E(A*$sU+xq2N&r@KE+(wX%-BesH`P zI-w32*;iYARw3nxzzAoT~TPhkd9gf60F>J@-!STVVxQ~WbjxmUZt!#^ro9vr1j0gIsyTT+V zTG~IoOkwGYPcQlV>5a()lk^K1(`%WyG#Q~0RE3@kFp;DF@F^XgLm+5CtcIY{{pSzS zE~0yZQFq7iux~?{4s5h_Pn=LfZ3Ui*#r#AM`qI~WJK+9^_}?`&6joSx0EP+xBk-A| z<=F2Qin-Qjt37Zrn2=oc#C48imgXe8J`R z^(n5%5g`(JIjNfM_AP^9BI_{ZTCi`yyxAc)3lK5hG%tAc@oiSLPtD1BhyxA&(qU9z zU~-CLM~jEYtkvc9_o`Ktm9Hk82m&7$T@-n4qoe+ZCy4?KB30*s-kudoV`Jx^KQJ>~ z1MfxL0TT}%Si*Gl^nN%<(V?E?x+gkb8??sR%|ks=7u@4t7IQ8h9x$WOKCUdJ61^$| zl}?eNv2iNi*4)I?TYRLGUTVIpal~q@qUndLe1t0e#SJq9k;gi^UQ(bJ`1$pLP7{I6E+rEuXztf0ym=@=Hgbm?({p8RzVlMh;Z@a@pAO#ii6) zyPoC$!GUk1KE|bdBZt8ZYE)gIzDwz93G>-+KW0~dq%;OmpSh`KJ_fSg2NVdBJB0(S zVWp69p?2Kim(~Aq0r;!zuf6;B>OminwQ>+SuN_Y^$1T<}iE3)Xn}{F;@B!n3i;y{L zVY-RBrlPeq1~3=g8II*P8wkh8qpTae-MH{~df?hm>n*u?8x`+`DEcq%p43m<@4 zaR)AlP0lU6F}Eu%a)?aYs;w~1L3iy6hThA?mTNAAhVG(J?qzyQJC;nbX*Q*ztv256 zV=Q4L9Ef=0u%7$kRngTZOeUAP!tq1Yx3-A9Su9^au!;S! zg_)q6w6ssQ=Wcaoffq$Zyg^|bmiNCOwJ5&F4pBd{o01Y$-R|8Wc93;9de2{Ub$7li z;5&duLM-$>hA=$#=4b@~bnV6-5V=i3EcTzOs)FhHJ(aS}-d#P%8J2il=l*d0_VAFvp8GI?t3w2ud2?G+RqkCX~yCvxe@iBH0WA= zWiVCaOH+g>!gW6%F}^Xk+1?p*;L_mKMdYT?{aP9i07j7`Q>9p@2F=ou8rjL%Q5E!aj`@ z%4D6oKxcP%IRcAgO}iFKARho5B!Li=0Bsr-ia%JnS)xCNrE~z&3L-IQM{BL(g{JpG zi+(@%jtIy<8q-YQwA)E=Gaa)<>(?0hUH06#=?Km4FZ~h$m!Lm%a^9H^gK5mXdA|5! zDh$I8C}$j7lq3TC^Qi4`uN{q}Xhk=pTIL>Gg*n;vK+LFNMd)zWI!eNQ#)$cX7ww_x%H5uwgXqo|~oF+gP)eP<3U1hG@Jf{f@2@|`+NexF+7=+Sl zuquZ8bryP@-y0h*GUFX4rwE8q_vmQ*NQ7xp!yD|00>L>sJv}KS<2LHw6FNFqOwy~` z+v8yTvd6Xm1U8MObMrUaNMn5_DEimn68qL@Cx-3`FLF2`SkFC^n>k%L`ZCwRU~D+| zbxU!y^R0tTos#Rw`no5+DoagX=J6d9Wgclh_0l!=D(p1zPK)@yP== za~fbJuY{`X79Z+7>Y=rChua}(heOAN+KTXwKo;@8af`2w3h*&Jrpd zCVVO;bBzuy@HoDWJG%!17;sJwp_)Nq29eTL)N*iGa`22+OSpp|0=On1E=~Z7iVnMr z+vbzBv-~I$CAFX8GhZ=DI*z(;(uhWh!0znqOzawP6ad#$qq--S2Z%}6-YH>f0Plm$ zv)Mv{)}z#)UyFT;IFNsEEL8nX5yH`|I5xEYAm4R`kid^7tzE1mKlci%~;-@~f2UQReG$L&q zl=#TuBC8r3H&7v6VkbB-w+BydE8lQW#yuefjvlOr%TY`4I{cmzQ^oMw)!m(+LqMSR z)#((AI~qbNS%K-u*j6d>`X^2V98c;-x4W+QVYWJ`4M`YbtzN_V)?oS_=s!ez^x>Ak zEfk#I#U+)LQ?}Z;uUGU^dQc&SH!Th}rSbqQc*w5H;9R&WV}Pw>gqN;^XY1Ca%b+kr zzU)@GqHigrval?5aZK}cYA;gPm&{@KAa$JYDFj56J>-u4UGS@mEh{g-2K$H;Cr*45 z9!=0qMsZRO5A2jiZ}lL_aJ6eVKDb%oy`oi>m7svAf&TyGKBBi!z|!>bb!Hw$b1pO` z?k+CeoP2y=AU?yhyR+vIgL4C!i-PLV?QU#LVzB)~`@(_(bVbl5l0i5^%Tr(fXD=Ix zYy&93O3!9V|Kl5YvMnQ zA>IAZdhy1g>CG4i!Rw>A+uKVhFmHpl{J6@s7R<@MH#P0koXcz(F00HgA!)u*#?(>_~enV%aJ&;+Us>cZ`R zcYSq+sm9!(r)$~yViU#vK+8d-KnIuDw?-(c5_MA3(@#%~QhUL-$}KX+{vz0)cISZN zhgq&U>LX;$>`_Us>?m~gNFJY1bT-4N3<9#^zITfaYVq}hgMr!ymC7mQJE1_uXE zdE)KEqd5n|zKH1(4DNuJVQ<*%L)x48mUycog!y5viee`V%zK;|MkXd3%A_6|Aq52m zQubiCAMn(2aYJ{@N?&0QJy1>E=nj+Uflz`m8|Nw|YCdMTDrBuBKM z_1Pxei zRGK!O{KuV`JpdjA&R*AY-nj?o2M+#ZITl8FXs_NH4QtsCA$6laO1XX1=mGbmq=o^}RjXEIz@v_!M!{=oOdja)&4C3& z>2VVKWW@r9;lc_sId&3#AEAiveS8eeTo!)*uNa_$7`+n`x3aRblrumkw=u7PLM{9{3hcub1590*UW6GOR9oZY3q9LIK80ND9Djv2pIw z?~knbbTwC3*Lw^0*+xLa)zT?@0I%=(df7$;;|{!F=w6l!)S4ZFARwQtjJxM2!FTD( zrpvGRh8$B3;xf+1*r|FQekb1ydFln(j9x0%XRH)sHyIfjE*Nnb7&Jd9T|Bj&Y>0tU z2)(<@c_twT3YGh_1iFj}1E<5Q7c~>=h%pPh~5-x+A_tbK6$R00I-uMHc- zTSkBfqdkCu;1eVzq7jFZquuO2+#%#X)%(wN1|u>9z5je>yHg!E9`r`YQt_hoKn#+Y zk&#h%3B^D#h9}tn7*Qvzssj_18tEOHe!#(i`0h30Ny*<9`u=XCrdX)t`-#M!u9%hC zgsm3?+RO|uKI_un;In__WL3{|3cFtV1-^99B_2u`Z{PZyr7MS>hv#xWLsdH@7`A-l z8xM4Sq$o;rf8oHIY;t3roHC{?gfJ{+WF(vXFwl@&-iYnSNkEo?inLD5l)rxuhEgBm zlo_B(q6n2~^St)+rx83Z`xy)))!##xD(AN-i^WtRfYV{qle_Vg%@}bsg$LEWJ-+ zSWCV<&BMEQT^zB?#>*@+Fnz}Mx>2fM9Tr&wfNphukP*mYpROIJ0I6c(JCQ4ZPJoUj z8Rm=*4r)MZjHaY$y6FrW%!y#d#VgxRzBr+;UxkW`Z}O`IJxBDH571*Z!v_=OQS9gJ z93F0!Sfh6~Ht8)H(vSSA#&|k8Elm{M9OM}w?8BaEFv#4#9rkMnvS4(C(iIcWORGMk z9>yZ3Z`&v15JlHSNGS-c=&0(TT78Q1 zq3;t5JO~{VSzeGC`(O6roW$>04oXVeiXTZtc&NV=#FF|IJ2f#h1@n)07Bzc!Pfw%W zC2a&_?6n01cn@{RWR>Fb9rVs7e)E>gb5)9LV1L192j)|MYX#;b)yj#J7XT!pMF(gI zms5Fpc?WCe)0(h^vqByK=mxqX{Jemm5rAJ>?rMK;uNnsAc}|@)Scom{0+OYcpWQ78&M~d!$ zHWHv`%NCX68bTHJd}W*xXFVN#eSL!&&G;<8Qd(d;Bz>>C0+V69v61{c(6mFGua{n8e~umi93J)4vZHAQ1#@=lQg5w6RCQH%1sI_l;OlgN7id%3$D-pfp43? zo#J#YWu=c3Sunh<=VALR>B3bWzQHsKVB=_S2T0C$r`Ii?; zS9p-RV!a2qp=^3AcS#gJV!Mz(y2&{Pb#R?p9*63)v@~YC6xc!VNXC($csavh2?c%5 zMINAw*@vFp9x_g-YiPKKCK5gZ=q)awOIasTZnsS}DXb&7a`ge~d(>P{ISqXCHwU;E zaF%z|i7MC`4W!)Z}|laQrr2kV(bQ>p`{(bRxN;K6ReouLifY7}9ssAzU=8#>n z{3}z^v+6n=sN-dQ=63DSdo2h@Z796v3M5i+>o1@|({w@|;1#hctJZhGx zmN_<+M*Bs%MU6z=;$egvAh#G*)b9ym873~BoA$ekp&@gQL+1jQ75m23PFSf&9EnjH z5p=|J%nZ#1S(#0g^jHIkTk^J=GC1vxq6B&9mm9@6b$_rm7>$6#=~Q*{VEUVGTLB;K zdl*!cZB^w%kan}Qw{~P@L|>`ig)ECtX53) zIeJ#M_+-aY0z8b3jmZs0PgT!@tF1>`^cv1y5kHMOetc}q?C0ByJ4;4Rog^*!*RP`J zI>FW>#6!F!>bPD+6+X>};++^kg_nw-+K%2Fcq+MGY)Ic{VE$SJ7knLaS!gvt=IBZ* z94Y91vxLEp1=@gcPT?G*RN`HV+)J!L|ES6$=0 z(O$^Nz+gR*4ZI8c{chkWgFSHrDkpNugWm^Uq--de{CWTYZpX+7fnCXfGX2bi)UI+I zOz=K(G&bxYorB`SkJ=;0kGubB8gK=3XS~_`R`!4&qVT=QNOg>`(9L7b1H`~b5X&KG zCOj4UT{a#+dg?Non+?$8emftT^99;QFd#d+ES~_kC>)%mq@D?Gb-3{TrH;N2JRKN; z(7GZDtIp&Dx40I(Uf1wUNbtLBu?M~PZF-7X%lt^;sH|&03qU4R!0ZA7{*?jln}P5P z_>3Kju5Cf&(PJ=6-xfL%8<_rZ&$_uJz~gwq;!R8a>K6i8hE444cjB26lb&@npV5e< z%SAOr!N^V)*&mz)40qU2)Fa@?p>Mx7e=ah)(FWB!jvm<$YAAVBeEatEsQDwt`UVF- zL5_r*a5hc!$Ir(tXJ^dbt>TnJm2Z~|M1ojoUMo6=~=cZxhxD~3BYTwl4WGtek!;B0A zpw`x6<5XjJLwE`T+a`t*5GU?in89BLwGnUNi%PZGK)eqIRqIW)X)oc6+MxOP1+sg6 zOCU>b47w})V1r;0%6oK$#8K$ybO|Oyq~4X1l0tj}@`L$Qt5_h$(dW;f_w2Yr@8s@Y z(m9))lCoJur1A}?;nAZZ-Mi5V!fNXS32Nfv&(ZXwoIu5e!5Uf+(ak63I`eb;@3 zK9oiI?3b-^KJT#xU~psIm9T{UM6>!VnBOKcL0W6|8z2t%(9Giv!RxgyLOrE1zF~l9 zK5s-sl#C2>a&g_mLJLGx)KypoNQ^iinbRS>lPCt03{NkwbGtU;3LU;X;1h_mAGizH zrlEW@6cb8H+MMH#CvAq6G$Xs{+XXpI#rq)oqZ)!cUztO$dDahZ-ji@C#p_)- z_|pnqKG2stAS5BVgDF+iy*u0J3u%C6XRBIT7GAs`Ahja2;Anx-tQx!VgvQINH6lqN ziaE)zOvHbe*%MDchWm@fMK{zQY>eK);txQeX!-9DYG~u*QbH9myk#b*IeL586TsBI1$DC$G<|SANgLKHZ$jyA|dB)7?Bk70=}W_`nE23IkfoH<%NV z)(A|4+F!2s_>WaE$`Y{s_~H zV9;TeI&x@ObvM;(F$Fn*c!Ypew^6|- z&%AB`MQs!i0xB-a18d>NyldCk!&xm5^x>xoGzGl7v)5|qwf>E5;B%y_r*}PG3}zN( ztR;Azfk1q6+iB#3Jxst34d9Z7(2c}FmUqHV!r9&ZLv8Ko!&|C494G=S?}}*lLydsu zE^nYlD2OFK!8f-J&IQB!0!nAK@^z}smVTf;6+)UyZ$_FJPH^je>xru1N>f`EeI*i&4y{#q&6N{J%0vDS|i3`u~4Q)jo3 zjcy9hJI!t)7(ha z%D-3*_N>Qd#hq6>JDLf z`NdZWUN}`&2(J+>+1c6P$ff_7*@2{n7oU}nuhru6t5e(Y3v@Vw@Lq%43w?SI-ZoST z(%Wz7Vu%RH!4QuKS#fbHNl^r_;HOU-&{usXe}EP40BKOLgE{PZGT{_zW&*Fc4(MV= z;sx$3_BE&7^kfuLVF$SUvxmXp^8AJGmjfE%JUs^Y=-n6Vw+!r7zHvYoq{<&R0M7^bcnr`i6sXS&3bI~unbJ3CGJ!(aqPjXrO{B0w*ERjKo*(LDPg@RZ|;BkL*73(+)6><^pA9*llz+ zXG66(PBjx6FDCG-y3>{_13M)02nqqhfU0*eaiV33@V$e)v7{qCo z?=-7F?|Ukc_WNO_2g{RTn-y#|35wgcUDT0^ilO?b%Ar$n0&xJ;-AZ4;of^MJR^zMf zUT$cwYQR^GvWz1nB&<+!3qNIC(^Ef<(+ZKXGma#^d_9mj>9!OVU`i8oC&Dz^cd()o25PQ997Rv%bv6Br?8J3{XU*>wOZ&NB8lC4{Te(4y61C9g#h7z#Ay4_Wdsm! z#}|x3;ZH^m!!6XZsNl*0j!H&yF$t**t;$%@U9qC2yNBw3G%ufZe zbaA2<$%H-;UV)^exL2DmFZ@D`31e_!xE#W9$SPXVO&Tz_|6;cQIObz7I5n2PIQo@? zQqnH?6bKcekYniT=y@5~0Ks5A+Ps1hJ_^1l2B^7@%ixE;^t^abC&!93x-A%%}a&eJD;dC)msR|DG%&I!5T164lF&qJH zo&i1Mj9W#?(##nUCu$-kO9#egfCfQ2-MixBZ2U^X6U1jMpNbnQ5eLwE3pKG6Xxe}P z1^Lt%gti1^dsEq_jy0}sw%W_R6bC%1&2Pbe{w-2(5E3TI$%v`IRS1BdH~32wlE>po zAbo%Zj@!N&qI+=X$zJA(iGnmaEyaiMc!KK%YRh*G4U;c!5tRrEpiCTUH6b<$iRS}D zLz-BHhf;PO(@FdasLY9pH<2dcHY2reYm~rU(V{W14NSkG`EEx)%Aj8C(R!e5$RK2- z1CS87kzI4f75r?~Uqk&RmlMfg$N#T@1mFq|05)r2#qIm{_La~pn0}E04Dd5vhCNX| z6D7dfh#L-`bNbwqngv^_#~|h5uLDkm@g@p7(##Pod7GIKzKISM9JWc0GsVl3&?4vK zR>D!FOepLa3<$-gu_(WNgH{=h6p+#mw5#Y8;8a~bpV69&3?0m?YlA5MVxe{!gs)FGm`QN0<9(n zNu~;~R?o=|7~H-pD*DA*ArYL3!4<6RrOP*Vyo~qsqVBp7>vbIjoQ@X~`bGRe?sygb zp5QyeWb+H6G0*E~Jt%rn&l9>3HnLru$+tsev!A%!yTFDg$C}DEd2E9ZXh(`z=s;H0 z?wnaIj+W{aJze=tzjP)?vLA3}}XSgPG!wz1{;GqBgSo~(Z0cJ?l zxx8f#B0l*vLoqQi^q4*pBZ{MjrvLx1B=K+FUx;ZiDXhMJ{W=ly?>CV%DQ!L{MU{f; z`TB>dDl)%9tny*|?{W`p3n+dn_UZG(wWeRoWDpgP5;lNoDL)q%*ZivgE{m-!YPXLZ zwdoKHrcg;>l-SkVE4owie}8ZQ1r>awc+E-gD2IE8@?+^0^)cUY`-=eV^>VCUuW{O%J;u^nS zO4~b;NT&cn3_D^B;zSrYO#l1XysH8?1C~yv>S-6ZjV013G}>fq|6N!hV^|+w-$d#E z`!r6PM+G4r(kC%h>jrNKEenF?ZN2|{d(NyiQ;eOQz609BJ2btR)?gO=bMQcl*ryGS zrUQM^zOO}c>h47JxVL=x@^&ev{zd8=-;0iN>wn9WhrYZSs3Bz90B~Ly$I{M}k4^KB zF$G{@Z>nBi+|+b-vyJ diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/RCUApplicability.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/RCUApplicability.svg deleted file mode 100644 index ebcbeee391ed..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/RCUApplicability.svg +++ /dev/null @@ -1,237 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - - - - - - - image/svg+xml - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Read-Mostly, Stale & - - Inconsistent Data OK - - (RCU Works Great!!!) - - (RCU Works Well) - - Read-Mostly, Need Consistent Data - - Read-Write, Need Consistent Data - - Update-Mostly, Need Consistent Data - - (RCU Might Be OK...) - - (1) Provide Existence Guarantees For Update-Friendly Mechanisms - - (2) Provide Wait-Free Read-Side Primitives for Real-Time Use) - - (RCU is Very Unlikely to be the Right Tool For The Job, But it Can: - - diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index 01e12b86e81f..c67a96a2a389 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -1120,12 +1120,27 @@ These classes is covered in the following sections.

    Specialization

    -RCU is and always has been intended primarily for read-mostly situations, as -illustrated by the following figure. -This means that RCU's read-side primitives are optimized, often at the +RCU is and always has been intended primarily for read-mostly situations, +which means that RCU's read-side primitives are optimized, often at the expense of its update-side primitives. +Experience thus far is captured by the following list of situations: -

    RCUApplicability.svg

    +
      +
    1. Read-mostly data, where stale and inconsistent data is not + a problem: RCU works great! +
    2. Read-mostly data, where data must be consistent: + RCU works well. +
    3. Read-write data, where data must be consistent: + RCU might work OK. + Or not. +
    4. Write-mostly data, where data must be consistent: + RCU is very unlikely to be the right tool for the job, + with the following exceptions, where RCU can provide: +
        +
      1. Existence guarantees for update-friendly mechanisms. +
      2. Wait-free read-side primitives for real-time use. +
      +

    This focus on read-mostly situations means that RCU must interoperate @@ -1171,10 +1186,7 @@ some period of time, so the exact wait period is a judgment call. One of our pair of veternarians might wait 30 seconds before pronouncing the cat dead, while the other might insist on waiting a full minute. The two veternarians would then disagree on the state of the cat during -the final 30 seconds of the minute following the last heartbeat, as -fancifully illustrated below: - -

    2013-08-is-it-dead.png

    +the final 30 seconds of the minute following the last heartbeat.

    Interestingly enough, this same situation applies to hardware. diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx index 3355f1f9384c..d6a84f3e0451 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx @@ -1257,12 +1257,27 @@ These classes is covered in the following sections.

    Specialization

    -RCU is and always has been intended primarily for read-mostly situations, as -illustrated by the following figure. -This means that RCU's read-side primitives are optimized, often at the +RCU is and always has been intended primarily for read-mostly situations, +which means that RCU's read-side primitives are optimized, often at the expense of its update-side primitives. +Experience thus far is captured by the following list of situations: -

    RCUApplicability.svg

    +
      +
    1. Read-mostly data, where stale and inconsistent data is not + a problem: RCU works great! +
    2. Read-mostly data, where data must be consistent: + RCU works well. +
    3. Read-write data, where data must be consistent: + RCU might work OK. + Or not. +
    4. Write-mostly data, where data must be consistent: + RCU is very unlikely to be the right tool for the job, + with the following exceptions, where RCU can provide: +
        +
      1. Existence guarantees for update-friendly mechanisms. +
      2. Wait-free read-side primitives for real-time use. +
      +

    This focus on read-mostly situations means that RCU must interoperate @@ -1330,10 +1345,7 @@ some period of time, so the exact wait period is a judgment call. One of our pair of veternarians might wait 30 seconds before pronouncing the cat dead, while the other might insist on waiting a full minute. The two veternarians would then disagree on the state of the cat during -the final 30 seconds of the minute following the last heartbeat, as -fancifully illustrated below: - -

    2013-08-is-it-dead.png

    +the final 30 seconds of the minute following the last heartbeat.

    Interestingly enough, this same situation applies to hardware. From 6146f8df48cb52c46c256424bd03b567b889b7bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:25:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 08/56] documentation: Get rid of duplicate .htmlx file This commit uses colors to obscure the quick-quiz answers, thus getting rid of the .htmlx file. Use your mouse to select the answer in order to see the text. Alternatively, use your favorite scripting language to remove all occurences of "" from the file. Reported-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 885 +++-- .../Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 2872 ----------------- Documentation/RCU/Design/htmlqqz.sh | 108 - 3 files changed, 426 insertions(+), 3439 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx delete mode 100755 Documentation/RCU/Design/htmlqqz.sh diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index c67a96a2a389..acdad96f78e9 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ - - @@ -65,8 +63,8 @@ All that aside, here are the categories of currently known RCU requirements:

    This is followed by a summary, -which is in turn followed by the inevitable -answers to the quick quizzes. +however, the answers to each quick quiz immediately follows the quiz. +Select the big white space with your mouse to see the answer.

    Fundamental Requirements

    @@ -153,13 +151,27 @@ Therefore, the outcome: cannot happen. -

    Quick Quiz 1: -Wait a minute! -You said that updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently -with readers, but pre-existing readers will block -synchronize_rcu()!!! -Just who are you trying to fool??? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Wait a minute! + You said that updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently + with readers, but pre-existing readers will block + synchronize_rcu()!!! + Just who are you trying to fool??? +
    Answer:
    + First, if updaters do not wish to be blocked by readers, they can use + call_rcu() or kfree_rcu(), which will + be discussed later. + Second, even when using synchronize_rcu(), the other + update-side code does run concurrently with readers, whether + pre-existing or not. +
     

    This scenario resembles one of the first uses of RCU in @@ -210,9 +222,20 @@ to guarantee that do_something() never runs concurrently with recovery(), but with little or no synchronization overhead in do_something_dlm(). -

    Quick Quiz 2: -Why is the synchronize_rcu() on line 28 needed? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Why is the synchronize_rcu() on line 28 needed? +
    Answer:
    + Without that extra grace period, memory reordering could result in + do_something_dlm() executing do_something() + concurrently with the last bits of recovery(). +
     

    In order to avoid fatal problems such as deadlocks, @@ -332,12 +355,27 @@ It also prevents any number of “interesting” compiler optimizations, for example, the use of gp as a scratch location immediately preceding the assignment. -

    Quick Quiz 3: -But rcu_assign_pointer() does nothing to prevent the -two assignments to p->a and p->b -from being reordered. -Can't that also cause problems? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + But rcu_assign_pointer() does nothing to prevent the + two assignments to p->a and p->b + from being reordered. + Can't that also cause problems? +
    Answer:
    + No, it cannot. + The readers cannot see either of these two fields until + the assignment to gp, by which time both fields are + fully initialized. + So reordering the assignments + to p->a and p->b cannot possibly + cause any problems. +
     

    It is tempting to assume that the reader need not do anything special @@ -494,11 +532,42 @@ The rcu_access_pointer() on line 6 is similar to code protected by the corresponding update-side lock. -

    Quick Quiz 4: -Without the rcu_dereference() or the -rcu_access_pointer(), what destructive optimizations -might the compiler make use of? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Without the rcu_dereference() or the + rcu_access_pointer(), what destructive optimizations + might the compiler make use of? +
    Answer:
    + Let's start with what happens to do_something_gp() + if it fails to use rcu_dereference(). + It could reuse a value formerly fetched from this same pointer. + It could also fetch the pointer from gp in a byte-at-a-time + manner, resulting in load tearing, in turn resulting a bytewise + mash-up of two distince pointer values. + It might even use value-speculation optimizations, where it makes + a wrong guess, but by the time it gets around to checking the + value, an update has changed the pointer to match the wrong guess. + Too bad about any dereferences that returned pre-initialization garbage + in the meantime! + + +

    + For remove_gp_synchronous(), as long as all modifications + to gp are carried out while holding gp_lock, + the above optimizations are harmless. + However, + with CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y, + sparse will complain if you + define gp with __rcu and then + access it without using + either rcu_access_pointer() or rcu_dereference(). +

     

    In short, RCU's publish-subscribe guarantee is provided by the combination @@ -571,28 +640,156 @@ systems with more than one CPU: synchronize_rcu() migrates in the meantime. -

    Quick Quiz 5: -Given that multiple CPUs can start RCU read-side critical sections -at any time without any ordering whatsoever, how can RCU possibly tell whether -or not a given RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of synchronize_rcu()? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Given that multiple CPUs can start RCU read-side critical sections + at any time without any ordering whatsoever, how can RCU possibly + tell whether or not a given RCU read-side critical section starts + before a given instance of synchronize_rcu()? +
    Answer:
    + If RCU cannot tell whether or not a given + RCU read-side critical section starts before a + given instance of synchronize_rcu(), + then it must assume that the RCU read-side critical section + started first. + In other words, a given instance of synchronize_rcu() + can avoid waiting on a given RCU read-side critical section only + if it can prove that synchronize_rcu() started first. +
     
    -

    Quick Quiz 6: -The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! -Are all these memory barriers really required? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! + Are all these memory barriers really required? +
    Answer:
    + Yes, they really are required. + To see why the first guarantee is required, consider the following + sequence of events: + -

    Quick Quiz 7: -You claim that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() -generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. -This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive -RCU read-side critical sections. -Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section -is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical -sections are done? -Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? -
    Answer +

      +
    1. + CPU 1: rcu_read_lock() + +
    2. + CPU 1: q = rcu_dereference(gp); + /* Very likely to return p. */ + +
    3. + CPU 0: list_del_rcu(p); + +
    4. + CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() starts. + +
    5. + CPU 1: do_something_with(q->a); + /* No smp_mb(), so might happen after kfree(). */ + +
    6. + CPU 1: rcu_read_unlock() + +
    7. + CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() returns. + +
    8. + CPU 0: kfree(p); + +
    + +

    + Therefore, there absolutely must be a full memory barrier between the + end of the RCU read-side critical section and the end of the + grace period. + + +

    + The sequence of events demonstrating the necessity of the second rule + is roughly similar: + + +

      +
    1. CPU 0: list_del_rcu(p); + +
    2. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() starts. + +
    3. CPU 1: rcu_read_lock() + +
    4. CPU 1: q = rcu_dereference(gp); + /* Might return p if no memory barrier. */ + +
    5. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() returns. + +
    6. CPU 0: kfree(p); + +
    7. + CPU 1: do_something_with(q->a); /* Boom!!! */ + +
    8. CPU 1: rcu_read_unlock() + +
    + +

    + And similarly, without a memory barrier between the beginning of the + grace period and the beginning of the RCU read-side critical section, + CPU 1 might end up accessing the freelist. + + +

    + The “as if” rule of course applies, so that any + implementation that acts as if the appropriate memory barriers + were in place is a correct implementation. + That said, it is much easier to fool yourself into believing + that you have adhered to the as-if rule than it is to actually + adhere to it! +

     
    + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + You claim that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() + generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. + This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive + RCU read-side critical sections. + Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section + is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical + sections are done? + Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? +
    Answer:
    + In cases where rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() + generate absolutely no code, RCU infers quiescent states only at + special locations, for example, within the scheduler. + Because calls to schedule() had better prevent calling-code + accesses to shared variables from being rearranged across the call to + schedule(), if RCU detects the end of a given RCU read-side + critical section, it will necessarily detect the end of all prior + RCU read-side critical sections, no matter how aggressively the + compiler scrambles the code. + + +

    + Again, this all assumes that the compiler cannot scramble code across + calls to the scheduler, out of interrupt handlers, into the idle loop, + into user-mode code, and so on. + But if your kernel build allows that sort of scrambling, you have broken + far more than just RCU! +

     

    Note that these memory-barrier requirements do not replace the fundamental @@ -637,9 +834,19 @@ inconvenience can be avoided through use of the call_rcu() and kfree_rcu() API members described later in this document. -

    Quick Quiz 8: -But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? +
    Answer:
    + It doesn't, just like normal RCU updates, which also do not exclude + RCU readers. +
     

    This guarantee allows lookup code to be shared between read-side @@ -725,9 +932,20 @@ to do significant reordering. This is by design: Any significant ordering constraints would slow down these fast-path APIs. -

    Quick Quiz 9: -Can't the compiler also reorder this code? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Can't the compiler also reorder this code? +
    Answer:
    + No, the volatile casts in READ_ONCE() and + WRITE_ONCE() prevent the compiler from reordering in + this particular case. +
     

    Readers Do Not Exclude Updaters

    @@ -780,10 +998,25 @@ new readers can start immediately after synchronize_rcu() starts, and synchronize_rcu() is under no obligation to wait for these new readers. -

    Quick Quiz 10: -Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. -Would the updater be able to rely on this? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. + Would the updater be able to rely on this? +
    Answer:
    + No. + Even if synchronize_rcu() were to wait until + all readers had completed, a new reader might start immediately after + synchronize_rcu() completed. + Therefore, the code following + synchronize_rcu() cannot rely on there being no readers + in any case. +
     

    Grace Periods Don't Partition Read-Side Critical Sections

    @@ -980,11 +1213,24 @@ grace period. As a result, an RCU read-side critical section cannot partition a pair of RCU grace periods. -

    Quick Quiz 11: -How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU read-side -critical section, would be required to partition the RCU read-side -critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU + read-side critical section, would be required to partition the RCU + read-side critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? +
    Answer:
    + In theory, an infinite number. + In practice, an unknown number that is sensitive to both implementation + details and timing considerations. + Therefore, even in practice, RCU users must abide by the + theoretical rather than the practical answer. +
     

    Disabling Preemption Does Not Block Grace Periods

    @@ -1153,9 +1399,43 @@ synchronization primitives be legal within RCU read-side critical sections, including spinlocks, sequence locks, atomic operations, reference counters, and memory barriers. -

    Quick Quiz 12: -What about sleeping locks? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + What about sleeping locks? +
    Answer:
    + These are forbidden within Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical + sections because it is not legal to place a quiescent state + (in this case, voluntary context switch) within an RCU read-side + critical section. + However, sleeping locks may be used within userspace RCU read-side + critical sections, and also within Linux-kernel sleepable RCU + (SRCU) + read-side critical sections. + In addition, the -rt patchset turns spinlocks into a + sleeping locks so that the corresponding critical sections + can be preempted, which also means that these sleeplockified + spinlocks (but not other sleeping locks!) may be acquire within + -rt-Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical sections. + + +

    + Note that it is legal for a normal RCU read-side + critical section to conditionally acquire a sleeping locks + (as in mutex_trylock()), but only as long as it does + not loop indefinitely attempting to conditionally acquire that + sleeping locks. + The key point is that things like mutex_trylock() + either return with the mutex held, or return an error indication if + the mutex was not immediately available. + Either way, mutex_trylock() returns immediately without + sleeping. +

     

    It often comes as a surprise that many algorithms do not require a @@ -1378,12 +1658,27 @@ write an RCU callback function that takes too long. Long-running operations should be relegated to separate threads or (in the Linux kernel) workqueues. -

    Quick Quiz 13: -Why does line 19 use rcu_access_pointer()? -After all, call_rcu() on line 25 stores into the -structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. -Doesn't this mean that rcu_dereference() is required? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Why does line 19 use rcu_access_pointer()? + After all, call_rcu() on line 25 stores into the + structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. + Doesn't this mean that rcu_dereference() is required? +
    Answer:
    + Presumably the ->gp_lock acquired on line 18 excludes + any changes, including any insertions that rcu_dereference() + would protect against. + Therefore, any insertions will be delayed until after + ->gp_lock + is released on line 25, which in turn means that + rcu_access_pointer() suffices. +
     

    However, all that remove_gp_cb() is doing is @@ -1430,14 +1725,31 @@ This was due to the fact that RCU was not heavily used within DYNIX/ptx, so the very few places that needed something like synchronize_rcu() simply open-coded it. -

    Quick Quiz 14: -Earlier it was claimed that call_rcu() and -kfree_rcu() allowed updaters to avoid being blocked -by readers. -But how can that be correct, given that the invocation of the callback -and the freeing of the memory (respectively) must still wait for -a grace period to elapse? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Earlier it was claimed that call_rcu() and + kfree_rcu() allowed updaters to avoid being blocked + by readers. + But how can that be correct, given that the invocation of the callback + and the freeing of the memory (respectively) must still wait for + a grace period to elapse? +
    Answer:
    + We could define things this way, but keep in mind that this sort of + definition would say that updates in garbage-collected languages + cannot complete until the next time the garbage collector runs, + which does not seem at all reasonable. + The key point is that in most cases, an updater using either + call_rcu() or kfree_rcu() can proceed to the + next update as soon as it has invoked call_rcu() or + kfree_rcu(), without having to wait for a subsequent + grace period. +
     

    But what if the updater must wait for the completion of code to be @@ -1862,11 +2174,26 @@ kthreads to be spawned. Therefore, invoking synchronize_rcu() during scheduler initialization can result in deadlock. -

    Quick Quiz 15: -So what happens with synchronize_rcu() during -scheduler initialization for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n -kernels? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + So what happens with synchronize_rcu() during + scheduler initialization for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n + kernels? +
    Answer:
    + In CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernel, synchronize_rcu() + maps directly to synchronize_sched(). + Therefore, synchronize_rcu() works normally throughout + boot in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels. + However, your code must also work in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernels, + so it is still necessary to avoid invoking synchronize_rcu() + during scheduler initialization. +
     

    I learned of these boot-time requirements as a result of a series of @@ -2571,10 +2898,23 @@ If you needed to wait on multiple different flavors of SRCU (but why???), you would need to create a wrapper function resembling call_my_srcu() for each SRCU flavor. -

    Quick Quiz 16: -But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need -the grace periods to be expedited? -
    Answer + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need + the grace periods to be expedited? +
    Answer:
    + If you are using expedited grace periods, there should be less penalty + for waiting on them in succession. + But if that is nevertheless a problem, you can use workqueues + or multiple kthreads to wait on the various expedited grace + periods concurrently. +
     

    Again, it is usually better to adjust the RCU read-side critical sections @@ -2678,377 +3018,4 @@ and is provided under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States license. -

    -Answers to Quick Quizzes

    - - -

    Quick Quiz 1: -Wait a minute! -You said that updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently -with readers, but pre-existing readers will block -synchronize_rcu()!!! -Just who are you trying to fool??? - - -

    Answer: -First, if updaters do not wish to be blocked by readers, they can use -call_rcu() or kfree_rcu(), which will -be discussed later. -Second, even when using synchronize_rcu(), the other -update-side code does run concurrently with readers, whether pre-existing -or not. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 1. - - -

    Quick Quiz 2: -Why is the synchronize_rcu() on line 28 needed? - - -

    Answer: -Without that extra grace period, memory reordering could result in -do_something_dlm() executing do_something() -concurrently with the last bits of recovery(). - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 2. - - -

    Quick Quiz 3: -But rcu_assign_pointer() does nothing to prevent the -two assignments to p->a and p->b -from being reordered. -Can't that also cause problems? - - -

    Answer: -No, it cannot. -The readers cannot see either of these two fields until -the assignment to gp, by which time both fields are -fully initialized. -So reordering the assignments -to p->a and p->b cannot possibly -cause any problems. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 3. - - -

    Quick Quiz 4: -Without the rcu_dereference() or the -rcu_access_pointer(), what destructive optimizations -might the compiler make use of? - - -

    Answer: -Let's start with what happens to do_something_gp() -if it fails to use rcu_dereference(). -It could reuse a value formerly fetched from this same pointer. -It could also fetch the pointer from gp in a byte-at-a-time -manner, resulting in load tearing, in turn resulting a bytewise -mash-up of two distince pointer values. -It might even use value-speculation optimizations, where it makes a wrong -guess, but by the time it gets around to checking the value, an update -has changed the pointer to match the wrong guess. -Too bad about any dereferences that returned pre-initialization garbage -in the meantime! - -

    -For remove_gp_synchronous(), as long as all modifications -to gp are carried out while holding gp_lock, -the above optimizations are harmless. -However, -with CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y, -sparse will complain if you -define gp with __rcu and then -access it without using -either rcu_access_pointer() or rcu_dereference(). - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 4. - - -

    Quick Quiz 5: -Given that multiple CPUs can start RCU read-side critical sections -at any time without any ordering whatsoever, how can RCU possibly tell whether -or not a given RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of synchronize_rcu()? - - -

    Answer: -If RCU cannot tell whether or not a given -RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of synchronize_rcu(), -then it must assume that the RCU read-side critical section -started first. -In other words, a given instance of synchronize_rcu() -can avoid waiting on a given RCU read-side critical section only -if it can prove that synchronize_rcu() started first. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 5. - - -

    Quick Quiz 6: -The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! -Are all these memory barriers really required? - - -

    Answer: -Yes, they really are required. -To see why the first guarantee is required, consider the following -sequence of events: - -

      -
    1. CPU 1: rcu_read_lock() -
    2. CPU 1: q = rcu_dereference(gp); - /* Very likely to return p. */ -
    3. CPU 0: list_del_rcu(p); -
    4. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() starts. -
    5. CPU 1: do_something_with(q->a); - /* No smp_mb(), so might happen after kfree(). */ -
    6. CPU 1: rcu_read_unlock() -
    7. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() returns. -
    8. CPU 0: kfree(p); -
    - -

    -Therefore, there absolutely must be a full memory barrier between the -end of the RCU read-side critical section and the end of the -grace period. - -

    -The sequence of events demonstrating the necessity of the second rule -is roughly similar: - -

      -
    1. CPU 0: list_del_rcu(p); -
    2. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() starts. -
    3. CPU 1: rcu_read_lock() -
    4. CPU 1: q = rcu_dereference(gp); - /* Might return p if no memory barrier. */ -
    5. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() returns. -
    6. CPU 0: kfree(p); -
    7. CPU 1: do_something_with(q->a); /* Boom!!! */ -
    8. CPU 1: rcu_read_unlock() -
    - -

    -And similarly, without a memory barrier between the beginning of the -grace period and the beginning of the RCU read-side critical section, -CPU 1 might end up accessing the freelist. - -

    -The “as if” rule of course applies, so that any implementation -that acts as if the appropriate memory barriers were in place is a -correct implementation. -That said, it is much easier to fool yourself into believing that you have -adhered to the as-if rule than it is to actually adhere to it! - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 6. - - -

    Quick Quiz 7: -You claim that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() -generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. -This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive -RCU read-side critical sections. -Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section -is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical -sections are done? -Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? - - -

    Answer: -In cases where rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() -generate absolutely no code, RCU infers quiescent states only at -special locations, for example, within the scheduler. -Because calls to schedule() had better prevent calling-code -accesses to shared variables from being rearranged across the call to -schedule(), if RCU detects the end of a given RCU read-side -critical section, it will necessarily detect the end of all prior -RCU read-side critical sections, no matter how aggressively the -compiler scrambles the code. - -

    -Again, this all assumes that the compiler cannot scramble code across -calls to the scheduler, out of interrupt handlers, into the idle loop, -into user-mode code, and so on. -But if your kernel build allows that sort of scrambling, you have broken -far more than just RCU! - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 7. - - -

    Quick Quiz 8: -But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? - - -

    Answer: -It doesn't, just like normal RCU updates, which also do not exclude -RCU readers. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 8. - - -

    Quick Quiz 9: -Can't the compiler also reorder this code? - - -

    Answer: -No, the volatile casts in READ_ONCE() and -WRITE_ONCE() prevent the compiler from reordering in -this particular case. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 9. - - -

    Quick Quiz 10: -Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. -Would the updater be able to rely on this? - - -

    Answer: -No. -Even if synchronize_rcu() were to wait until -all readers had completed, a new reader might start immediately after -synchronize_rcu() completed. -Therefore, the code following -synchronize_rcu() cannot rely on there being no readers -in any case. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 10. - - -

    Quick Quiz 11: -How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU read-side -critical section, would be required to partition the RCU read-side -critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? - - -

    Answer: -In theory, an infinite number. -In practice, an unknown number that is sensitive to both implementation -details and timing considerations. -Therefore, even in practice, RCU users must abide by the theoretical rather -than the practical answer. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 11. - - -

    Quick Quiz 12: -What about sleeping locks? - - -

    Answer: -These are forbidden within Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical sections -because it is not legal to place a quiescent state (in this case, -voluntary context switch) within an RCU read-side critical section. -However, sleeping locks may be used within userspace RCU read-side critical -sections, and also within Linux-kernel sleepable RCU -(SRCU) -read-side critical sections. -In addition, the -rt patchset turns spinlocks into a sleeping locks so -that the corresponding critical sections can be preempted, which -also means that these sleeplockified spinlocks (but not other sleeping locks!) -may be acquire within -rt-Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical sections. - -

    -Note that it is legal for a normal RCU read-side critical section -to conditionally acquire a sleeping locks (as in mutex_trylock()), -but only as long as it does not loop indefinitely attempting to -conditionally acquire that sleeping locks. -The key point is that things like mutex_trylock() -either return with the mutex held, or return an error indication if -the mutex was not immediately available. -Either way, mutex_trylock() returns immediately without sleeping. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 12. - - -

    Quick Quiz 13: -Why does line 19 use rcu_access_pointer()? -After all, call_rcu() on line 25 stores into the -structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. -Doesn't this mean that rcu_dereference() is required? - - -

    Answer: -Presumably the ->gp_lock acquired on line 18 excludes -any changes, including any insertions that rcu_dereference() -would protect against. -Therefore, any insertions will be delayed until after ->gp_lock -is released on line 25, which in turn means that -rcu_access_pointer() suffices. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 13. - - -

    Quick Quiz 14: -Earlier it was claimed that call_rcu() and -kfree_rcu() allowed updaters to avoid being blocked -by readers. -But how can that be correct, given that the invocation of the callback -and the freeing of the memory (respectively) must still wait for -a grace period to elapse? - - -

    Answer: -We could define things this way, but keep in mind that this sort of -definition would say that updates in garbage-collected languages -cannot complete until the next time the garbage collector runs, -which does not seem at all reasonable. -The key point is that in most cases, an updater using either -call_rcu() or kfree_rcu() can proceed to the -next update as soon as it has invoked call_rcu() or -kfree_rcu(), without having to wait for a subsequent -grace period. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 14. - - -

    Quick Quiz 15: -So what happens with synchronize_rcu() during -scheduler initialization for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n -kernels? - - -

    Answer: -In CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernel, synchronize_rcu() -maps directly to synchronize_sched(). -Therefore, synchronize_rcu() works normally throughout -boot in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels. -However, your code must also work in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernels, -so it is still necessary to avoid invoking synchronize_rcu() -during scheduler initialization. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 15. - - -

    Quick Quiz 16: -But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need -the grace periods to be expedited? - - -

    Answer: -If you are using expedited grace periods, there should be less penalty -for waiting on them in succession. -But if that is nevertheless a problem, you can use workqueues or multiple -kthreads to wait on the various expedited grace periods concurrently. - - -

    Back to Quick Quiz 16. - - diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx deleted file mode 100644 index d6a84f3e0451..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2872 +0,0 @@ - - - A Tour Through RCU's Requirements [LWN.net] - - -

    A Tour Through RCU's Requirements

    - -

    Copyright IBM Corporation, 2015

    -

    Author: Paul E. McKenney

    -

    The initial version of this document appeared in the -LWN articles -here, -here, and -here.

    - -

    Introduction

    - -

    -Read-copy update (RCU) is a synchronization mechanism that is often -used as a replacement for reader-writer locking. -RCU is unusual in that updaters do not block readers, -which means that RCU's read-side primitives can be exceedingly fast -and scalable. -In addition, updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently -with readers. -However, all this concurrency between RCU readers and updaters does raise -the question of exactly what RCU readers are doing, which in turn -raises the question of exactly what RCU's requirements are. - -

    -This document therefore summarizes RCU's requirements, and can be thought -of as an informal, high-level specification for RCU. -It is important to understand that RCU's specification is primarily -empirical in nature; -in fact, I learned about many of these requirements the hard way. -This situation might cause some consternation, however, not only -has this learning process been a lot of fun, but it has also been -a great privilege to work with so many people willing to apply -technologies in interesting new ways. - -

    -All that aside, here are the categories of currently known RCU requirements: -

    - -
      -
    1. - Fundamental Requirements -
    2. Fundamental Non-Requirements -
    3. - Parallelism Facts of Life -
    4. - Quality-of-Implementation Requirements -
    5. - Linux Kernel Complications -
    6. - Software-Engineering Requirements -
    7. - Other RCU Flavors -
    8. - Possible Future Changes -
    - -

    -This is followed by a summary, -which is in turn followed by the inevitable -answers to the quick quizzes. - -

    Fundamental Requirements

    - -

    -RCU's fundamental requirements are the closest thing RCU has to hard -mathematical requirements. -These are: - -

      -
    1. - Grace-Period Guarantee -
    2. - Publish-Subscribe Guarantee -
    3. - Memory-Barrier Guarantees -
    4. - RCU Primitives Guaranteed to Execute Unconditionally -
    5. - Guaranteed Read-to-Write Upgrade -
    - -

    Grace-Period Guarantee

    - -

    -RCU's grace-period guarantee is unusual in being premeditated: -Jack Slingwine and I had this guarantee firmly in mind when we started -work on RCU (then called “rclock”) in the early 1990s. -That said, the past two decades of experience with RCU have produced -a much more detailed understanding of this guarantee. - -

    -RCU's grace-period guarantee allows updaters to wait for the completion -of all pre-existing RCU read-side critical sections. -An RCU read-side critical section -begins with the marker rcu_read_lock() and ends with -the marker rcu_read_unlock(). -These markers may be nested, and RCU treats a nested set as one -big RCU read-side critical section. -Production-quality implementations of rcu_read_lock() and -rcu_read_unlock() are extremely lightweight, and in -fact have exactly zero overhead in Linux kernels built for production -use with CONFIG_PREEMPT=n. - -

    -This guarantee allows ordering to be enforced with extremely low -overhead to readers, for example: - -

    -
    - 1 int x, y;
- 2
- 3 void thread0(void)
- 4 {
- 5   rcu_read_lock();
- 6   r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
- 7   r2 = READ_ONCE(y);
- 8   rcu_read_unlock();
- 9 }
-10
-11 void thread1(void)
-12 {
-13   WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
-14   synchronize_rcu();
-15   WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
-16 }
-
    -
    - -

    -Because the synchronize_rcu() on line 14 waits for -all pre-existing readers, any instance of thread0() that -loads a value of zero from x must complete before -thread1() stores to y, so that instance must -also load a value of zero from y. -Similarly, any instance of thread0() that loads a value of -one from y must have started after the -synchronize_rcu() started, and must therefore also load -a value of one from x. -Therefore, the outcome: -

    -
    -(r1 == 0 && r2 == 1)
-
    -
    -cannot happen. - -

    @@QQ@@ -Wait a minute! -You said that updaters can make useful forward progress concurrently -with readers, but pre-existing readers will block -synchronize_rcu()!!! -Just who are you trying to fool??? -

    @@QQA@@ -First, if updaters do not wish to be blocked by readers, they can use -call_rcu() or kfree_rcu(), which will -be discussed later. -Second, even when using synchronize_rcu(), the other -update-side code does run concurrently with readers, whether pre-existing -or not. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -This scenario resembles one of the first uses of RCU in -DYNIX/ptx, -which managed a distributed lock manager's transition into -a state suitable for handling recovery from node failure, -more or less as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 #define STATE_NORMAL        0
- 2 #define STATE_WANT_RECOVERY 1
- 3 #define STATE_RECOVERING    2
- 4 #define STATE_WANT_NORMAL   3
- 5
- 6 int state = STATE_NORMAL;
- 7
- 8 void do_something_dlm(void)
- 9 {
-10   int state_snap;
-11
-12   rcu_read_lock();
-13   state_snap = READ_ONCE(state);
-14   if (state_snap == STATE_NORMAL)
-15     do_something();
-16   else
-17     do_something_carefully();
-18   rcu_read_unlock();
-19 }
-20
-21 void start_recovery(void)
-22 {
-23   WRITE_ONCE(state, STATE_WANT_RECOVERY);
-24   synchronize_rcu();
-25   WRITE_ONCE(state, STATE_RECOVERING);
-26   recovery();
-27   WRITE_ONCE(state, STATE_WANT_NORMAL);
-28   synchronize_rcu();
-29   WRITE_ONCE(state, STATE_NORMAL);
-30 }
-
    -
    - -

    -The RCU read-side critical section in do_something_dlm() -works with the synchronize_rcu() in start_recovery() -to guarantee that do_something() never runs concurrently -with recovery(), but with little or no synchronization -overhead in do_something_dlm(). - -

    @@QQ@@ -Why is the synchronize_rcu() on line 28 needed? -

    @@QQA@@ -Without that extra grace period, memory reordering could result in -do_something_dlm() executing do_something() -concurrently with the last bits of recovery(). -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -In order to avoid fatal problems such as deadlocks, -an RCU read-side critical section must not contain calls to -synchronize_rcu(). -Similarly, an RCU read-side critical section must not -contain anything that waits, directly or indirectly, on completion of -an invocation of synchronize_rcu(). - -

    -Although RCU's grace-period guarantee is useful in and of itself, with -quite a few use cases, -it would be good to be able to use RCU to coordinate read-side -access to linked data structures. -For this, the grace-period guarantee is not sufficient, as can -be seen in function add_gp_buggy() below. -We will look at the reader's code later, but in the meantime, just think of -the reader as locklessly picking up the gp pointer, -and, if the value loaded is non-NULL, locklessly accessing the -->a and ->b fields. - -

    -
    - 1 bool add_gp_buggy(int a, int b)
- 2 {
- 3   p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
- 4   if (!p)
- 5     return -ENOMEM;
- 6   spin_lock(&gp_lock);
- 7   if (rcu_access_pointer(gp)) {
- 8     spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
- 9     return false;
-10   }
-11   p->a = a;
-12   p->b = a;
-13   gp = p; /* ORDERING BUG */
-14   spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-15   return true;
-16 }
-
    -
    - -

    -The problem is that both the compiler and weakly ordered CPUs are within -their rights to reorder this code as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 bool add_gp_buggy_optimized(int a, int b)
- 2 {
- 3   p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
- 4   if (!p)
- 5     return -ENOMEM;
- 6   spin_lock(&gp_lock);
- 7   if (rcu_access_pointer(gp)) {
- 8     spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
- 9     return false;
-10   }
-11   gp = p; /* ORDERING BUG */
-12   p->a = a;
-13   p->b = a;
-14   spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-15   return true;
-16 }
-
    -
    - -

    -If an RCU reader fetches gp just after -add_gp_buggy_optimized executes line 11, -it will see garbage in the ->a and ->b -fields. -And this is but one of many ways in which compiler and hardware optimizations -could cause trouble. -Therefore, we clearly need some way to prevent the compiler and the CPU from -reordering in this manner, which brings us to the publish-subscribe -guarantee discussed in the next section. - -

    Publish/Subscribe Guarantee

    - -

    -RCU's publish-subscribe guarantee allows data to be inserted -into a linked data structure without disrupting RCU readers. -The updater uses rcu_assign_pointer() to insert the -new data, and readers use rcu_dereference() to -access data, whether new or old. -The following shows an example of insertion: - -

    -
    - 1 bool add_gp(int a, int b)
- 2 {
- 3   p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
- 4   if (!p)
- 5     return -ENOMEM;
- 6   spin_lock(&gp_lock);
- 7   if (rcu_access_pointer(gp)) {
- 8     spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
- 9     return false;
-10   }
-11   p->a = a;
-12   p->b = a;
-13   rcu_assign_pointer(gp, p);
-14   spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-15   return true;
-16 }
-
    -
    - -

    -The rcu_assign_pointer() on line 13 is conceptually -equivalent to a simple assignment statement, but also guarantees -that its assignment will -happen after the two assignments in lines 11 and 12, -similar to the C11 memory_order_release store operation. -It also prevents any number of “interesting” compiler -optimizations, for example, the use of gp as a scratch -location immediately preceding the assignment. - -

    @@QQ@@ -But rcu_assign_pointer() does nothing to prevent the -two assignments to p->a and p->b -from being reordered. -Can't that also cause problems? -

    @@QQA@@ -No, it cannot. -The readers cannot see either of these two fields until -the assignment to gp, by which time both fields are -fully initialized. -So reordering the assignments -to p->a and p->b cannot possibly -cause any problems. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -It is tempting to assume that the reader need not do anything special -to control its accesses to the RCU-protected data, -as shown in do_something_gp_buggy() below: - -

    -
    - 1 bool do_something_gp_buggy(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   p = gp;  /* OPTIMIZATIONS GALORE!!! */
- 5   if (p) {
- 6     do_something(p->a, p->b);
- 7     rcu_read_unlock();
- 8     return true;
- 9   }
-10   rcu_read_unlock();
-11   return false;
-12 }
-
    -
    - -

    -However, this temptation must be resisted because there are a -surprisingly large number of ways that the compiler -(to say nothing of -DEC Alpha CPUs) -can trip this code up. -For but one example, if the compiler were short of registers, it -might choose to refetch from gp rather than keeping -a separate copy in p as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 bool do_something_gp_buggy_optimized(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   if (gp) { /* OPTIMIZATIONS GALORE!!! */
- 5     do_something(gp->a, gp->b);
- 6     rcu_read_unlock();
- 7     return true;
- 8   }
- 9   rcu_read_unlock();
-10   return false;
-11 }
-
    -
    - -

    -If this function ran concurrently with a series of updates that -replaced the current structure with a new one, -the fetches of gp->a -and gp->b might well come from two different structures, -which could cause serious confusion. -To prevent this (and much else besides), do_something_gp() uses -rcu_dereference() to fetch from gp: - -

    -
    - 1 bool do_something_gp(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   p = rcu_dereference(gp);
- 5   if (p) {
- 6     do_something(p->a, p->b);
- 7     rcu_read_unlock();
- 8     return true;
- 9   }
-10   rcu_read_unlock();
-11   return false;
-12 }
-
    -
    - -

    -The rcu_dereference() uses volatile casts and (for DEC Alpha) -memory barriers in the Linux kernel. -Should a -high-quality implementation of C11 memory_order_consume [PDF] -ever appear, then rcu_dereference() could be implemented -as a memory_order_consume load. -Regardless of the exact implementation, a pointer fetched by -rcu_dereference() may not be used outside of the -outermost RCU read-side critical section containing that -rcu_dereference(), unless protection of -the corresponding data element has been passed from RCU to some -other synchronization mechanism, most commonly locking or -reference counting. - -

    -In short, updaters use rcu_assign_pointer() and readers -use rcu_dereference(), and these two RCU API elements -work together to ensure that readers have a consistent view of -newly added data elements. - -

    -Of course, it is also necessary to remove elements from RCU-protected -data structures, for example, using the following process: - -

      -
    1. Remove the data element from the enclosing structure. -
    2. Wait for all pre-existing RCU read-side critical sections - to complete (because only pre-existing readers can possibly have - a reference to the newly removed data element). -
    3. At this point, only the updater has a reference to the - newly removed data element, so it can safely reclaim - the data element, for example, by passing it to kfree(). -
    - -This process is implemented by remove_gp_synchronous(): - -
    -
    - 1 bool remove_gp_synchronous(void)
- 2 {
- 3   struct foo *p;
- 4
- 5   spin_lock(&gp_lock);
- 6   p = rcu_access_pointer(gp);
- 7   if (!p) {
- 8     spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
- 9     return false;
-10   }
-11   rcu_assign_pointer(gp, NULL);
-12   spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-13   synchronize_rcu();
-14   kfree(p);
-15   return true;
-16 }
-
    -
    - -

    -This function is straightforward, with line 13 waiting for a grace -period before line 14 frees the old data element. -This waiting ensures that readers will reach line 7 of -do_something_gp() before the data element referenced by -p is freed. -The rcu_access_pointer() on line 6 is similar to -rcu_dereference(), except that: - -

      -
    1. The value returned by rcu_access_pointer() - cannot be dereferenced. - If you want to access the value pointed to as well as - the pointer itself, use rcu_dereference() - instead of rcu_access_pointer(). -
    2. The call to rcu_access_pointer() need not be - protected. - In contrast, rcu_dereference() must either be - within an RCU read-side critical section or in a code - segment where the pointer cannot change, for example, in - code protected by the corresponding update-side lock. -
    - -

    @@QQ@@ -Without the rcu_dereference() or the -rcu_access_pointer(), what destructive optimizations -might the compiler make use of? -

    @@QQA@@ -Let's start with what happens to do_something_gp() -if it fails to use rcu_dereference(). -It could reuse a value formerly fetched from this same pointer. -It could also fetch the pointer from gp in a byte-at-a-time -manner, resulting in load tearing, in turn resulting a bytewise -mash-up of two distince pointer values. -It might even use value-speculation optimizations, where it makes a wrong -guess, but by the time it gets around to checking the value, an update -has changed the pointer to match the wrong guess. -Too bad about any dereferences that returned pre-initialization garbage -in the meantime! - -

    -For remove_gp_synchronous(), as long as all modifications -to gp are carried out while holding gp_lock, -the above optimizations are harmless. -However, -with CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y, -sparse will complain if you -define gp with __rcu and then -access it without using -either rcu_access_pointer() or rcu_dereference(). -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -In short, RCU's publish-subscribe guarantee is provided by the combination -of rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference(). -This guarantee allows data elements to be safely added to RCU-protected -linked data structures without disrupting RCU readers. -This guarantee can be used in combination with the grace-period -guarantee to also allow data elements to be removed from RCU-protected -linked data structures, again without disrupting RCU readers. - -

    -This guarantee was only partially premeditated. -DYNIX/ptx used an explicit memory barrier for publication, but had nothing -resembling rcu_dereference() for subscription, nor did it -have anything resembling the smp_read_barrier_depends() -that was later subsumed into rcu_dereference(). -The need for these operations made itself known quite suddenly at a -late-1990s meeting with the DEC Alpha architects, back in the days when -DEC was still a free-standing company. -It took the Alpha architects a good hour to convince me that any sort -of barrier would ever be needed, and it then took me a good two hours -to convince them that their documentation did not make this point clear. -More recent work with the C and C++ standards committees have provided -much education on tricks and traps from the compiler. -In short, compilers were much less tricky in the early 1990s, but in -2015, don't even think about omitting rcu_dereference()! - -

    Memory-Barrier Guarantees

    - -

    -The previous section's simple linked-data-structure scenario clearly -demonstrates the need for RCU's stringent memory-ordering guarantees on -systems with more than one CPU: - -

      -
    1. Each CPU that has an RCU read-side critical section that - begins before synchronize_rcu() starts is - guaranteed to execute a full memory barrier between the time - that the RCU read-side critical section ends and the time that - synchronize_rcu() returns. - Without this guarantee, a pre-existing RCU read-side critical section - might hold a reference to the newly removed struct foo - after the kfree() on line 14 of - remove_gp_synchronous(). -
    2. Each CPU that has an RCU read-side critical section that ends - after synchronize_rcu() returns is guaranteed - to execute a full memory barrier between the time that - synchronize_rcu() begins and the time that the RCU - read-side critical section begins. - Without this guarantee, a later RCU read-side critical section - running after the kfree() on line 14 of - remove_gp_synchronous() might - later run do_something_gp() and find the - newly deleted struct foo. -
    3. If the task invoking synchronize_rcu() remains - on a given CPU, then that CPU is guaranteed to execute a full - memory barrier sometime during the execution of - synchronize_rcu(). - This guarantee ensures that the kfree() on - line 14 of remove_gp_synchronous() really does - execute after the removal on line 11. -
    4. If the task invoking synchronize_rcu() migrates - among a group of CPUs during that invocation, then each of the - CPUs in that group is guaranteed to execute a full memory barrier - sometime during the execution of synchronize_rcu(). - This guarantee also ensures that the kfree() on - line 14 of remove_gp_synchronous() really does - execute after the removal on - line 11, but also in the case where the thread executing the - synchronize_rcu() migrates in the meantime. -
    - -

    @@QQ@@ -Given that multiple CPUs can start RCU read-side critical sections -at any time without any ordering whatsoever, how can RCU possibly tell whether -or not a given RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of synchronize_rcu()? -

    @@QQA@@ -If RCU cannot tell whether or not a given -RCU read-side critical section starts before a -given instance of synchronize_rcu(), -then it must assume that the RCU read-side critical section -started first. -In other words, a given instance of synchronize_rcu() -can avoid waiting on a given RCU read-side critical section only -if it can prove that synchronize_rcu() started first. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    @@QQ@@ -The first and second guarantees require unbelievably strict ordering! -Are all these memory barriers really required? -

    @@QQA@@ -Yes, they really are required. -To see why the first guarantee is required, consider the following -sequence of events: - -

      -
    1. CPU 1: rcu_read_lock() -
    2. CPU 1: q = rcu_dereference(gp); - /* Very likely to return p. */ -
    3. CPU 0: list_del_rcu(p); -
    4. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() starts. -
    5. CPU 1: do_something_with(q->a); - /* No smp_mb(), so might happen after kfree(). */ -
    6. CPU 1: rcu_read_unlock() -
    7. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() returns. -
    8. CPU 0: kfree(p); -
    - -

    -Therefore, there absolutely must be a full memory barrier between the -end of the RCU read-side critical section and the end of the -grace period. - -

    -The sequence of events demonstrating the necessity of the second rule -is roughly similar: - -

      -
    1. CPU 0: list_del_rcu(p); -
    2. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() starts. -
    3. CPU 1: rcu_read_lock() -
    4. CPU 1: q = rcu_dereference(gp); - /* Might return p if no memory barrier. */ -
    5. CPU 0: synchronize_rcu() returns. -
    6. CPU 0: kfree(p); -
    7. CPU 1: do_something_with(q->a); /* Boom!!! */ -
    8. CPU 1: rcu_read_unlock() -
    - -

    -And similarly, without a memory barrier between the beginning of the -grace period and the beginning of the RCU read-side critical section, -CPU 1 might end up accessing the freelist. - -

    -The “as if” rule of course applies, so that any implementation -that acts as if the appropriate memory barriers were in place is a -correct implementation. -That said, it is much easier to fool yourself into believing that you have -adhered to the as-if rule than it is to actually adhere to it! -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    @@QQ@@ -You claim that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() -generate absolutely no code in some kernel builds. -This means that the compiler might arbitrarily rearrange consecutive -RCU read-side critical sections. -Given such rearrangement, if a given RCU read-side critical section -is done, how can you be sure that all prior RCU read-side critical -sections are done? -Won't the compiler rearrangements make that impossible to determine? -

    @@QQA@@ -In cases where rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() -generate absolutely no code, RCU infers quiescent states only at -special locations, for example, within the scheduler. -Because calls to schedule() had better prevent calling-code -accesses to shared variables from being rearranged across the call to -schedule(), if RCU detects the end of a given RCU read-side -critical section, it will necessarily detect the end of all prior -RCU read-side critical sections, no matter how aggressively the -compiler scrambles the code. - -

    -Again, this all assumes that the compiler cannot scramble code across -calls to the scheduler, out of interrupt handlers, into the idle loop, -into user-mode code, and so on. -But if your kernel build allows that sort of scrambling, you have broken -far more than just RCU! -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -Note that these memory-barrier requirements do not replace the fundamental -RCU requirement that a grace period wait for all pre-existing readers. -On the contrary, the memory barriers called out in this section must operate in -such a way as to enforce this fundamental requirement. -Of course, different implementations enforce this requirement in different -ways, but enforce it they must. - -

    RCU Primitives Guaranteed to Execute Unconditionally

    - -

    -The common-case RCU primitives are unconditional. -They are invoked, they do their job, and they return, with no possibility -of error, and no need to retry. -This is a key RCU design philosophy. - -

    -However, this philosophy is pragmatic rather than pigheaded. -If someone comes up with a good justification for a particular conditional -RCU primitive, it might well be implemented and added. -After all, this guarantee was reverse-engineered, not premeditated. -The unconditional nature of the RCU primitives was initially an -accident of implementation, and later experience with synchronization -primitives with conditional primitives caused me to elevate this -accident to a guarantee. -Therefore, the justification for adding a conditional primitive to -RCU would need to be based on detailed and compelling use cases. - -

    Guaranteed Read-to-Write Upgrade

    - -

    -As far as RCU is concerned, it is always possible to carry out an -update within an RCU read-side critical section. -For example, that RCU read-side critical section might search for -a given data element, and then might acquire the update-side -spinlock in order to update that element, all while remaining -in that RCU read-side critical section. -Of course, it is necessary to exit the RCU read-side critical section -before invoking synchronize_rcu(), however, this -inconvenience can be avoided through use of the -call_rcu() and kfree_rcu() API members -described later in this document. - -

    @@QQ@@ -But how does the upgrade-to-write operation exclude other readers? -

    @@QQA@@ -It doesn't, just like normal RCU updates, which also do not exclude -RCU readers. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -This guarantee allows lookup code to be shared between read-side -and update-side code, and was premeditated, appearing in the earliest -DYNIX/ptx RCU documentation. - -

    Fundamental Non-Requirements

    - -

    -RCU provides extremely lightweight readers, and its read-side guarantees, -though quite useful, are correspondingly lightweight. -It is therefore all too easy to assume that RCU is guaranteeing more -than it really is. -Of course, the list of things that RCU does not guarantee is infinitely -long, however, the following sections list a few non-guarantees that -have caused confusion. -Except where otherwise noted, these non-guarantees were premeditated. - -

      -
    1. - Readers Impose Minimal Ordering -
    2. - Readers Do Not Exclude Updaters -
    3. - Updaters Only Wait For Old Readers -
    4. - Grace Periods Don't Partition Read-Side Critical Sections -
    5. - Read-Side Critical Sections Don't Partition Grace Periods -
    6. - Disabling Preemption Does Not Block Grace Periods -
    - -

    Readers Impose Minimal Ordering

    - -

    -Reader-side markers such as rcu_read_lock() and -rcu_read_unlock() provide absolutely no ordering guarantees -except through their interaction with the grace-period APIs such as -synchronize_rcu(). -To see this, consider the following pair of threads: - -

    -
    - 1 void thread0(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
- 5   rcu_read_unlock();
- 6   rcu_read_lock();
- 7   WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
- 8   rcu_read_unlock();
- 9 }
-10
-11 void thread1(void)
-12 {
-13   rcu_read_lock();
-14   r1 = READ_ONCE(y);
-15   rcu_read_unlock();
-16   rcu_read_lock();
-17   r2 = READ_ONCE(x);
-18   rcu_read_unlock();
-19 }
-
    -
    - -

    -After thread0() and thread1() execute -concurrently, it is quite possible to have - -

    -
    -(r1 == 1 && r2 == 0)
-
    -
    - -(that is, y appears to have been assigned before x), -which would not be possible if rcu_read_lock() and -rcu_read_unlock() had much in the way of ordering -properties. -But they do not, so the CPU is within its rights -to do significant reordering. -This is by design: Any significant ordering constraints would slow down -these fast-path APIs. - -

    @@QQ@@ -Can't the compiler also reorder this code? -

    @@QQA@@ -No, the volatile casts in READ_ONCE() and -WRITE_ONCE() prevent the compiler from reordering in -this particular case. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    Readers Do Not Exclude Updaters

    - -

    -Neither rcu_read_lock() nor rcu_read_unlock() -exclude updates. -All they do is to prevent grace periods from ending. -The following example illustrates this: - -

    -
    - 1 void thread0(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   r1 = READ_ONCE(y);
- 5   if (r1) {
- 6     do_something_with_nonzero_x();
- 7     r2 = READ_ONCE(x);
- 8     WARN_ON(!r2); /* BUG!!! */
- 9   }
-10   rcu_read_unlock();
-11 }
-12
-13 void thread1(void)
-14 {
-15   spin_lock(&my_lock);
-16   WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
-17   WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
-18   spin_unlock(&my_lock);
-19 }
-
    -
    - -

    -If the thread0() function's rcu_read_lock() -excluded the thread1() function's update, -the WARN_ON() could never fire. -But the fact is that rcu_read_lock() does not exclude -much of anything aside from subsequent grace periods, of which -thread1() has none, so the -WARN_ON() can and does fire. - -

    Updaters Only Wait For Old Readers

    - -

    -It might be tempting to assume that after synchronize_rcu() -completes, there are no readers executing. -This temptation must be avoided because -new readers can start immediately after synchronize_rcu() -starts, and synchronize_rcu() is under no -obligation to wait for these new readers. - -

    @@QQ@@ -Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. -Would the updater be able to rely on this? -

    @@QQA@@ -No. -Even if synchronize_rcu() were to wait until -all readers had completed, a new reader might start immediately after -synchronize_rcu() completed. -Therefore, the code following -synchronize_rcu() cannot rely on there being no readers -in any case. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -Grace Periods Don't Partition Read-Side Critical Sections

    - -

    -It is tempting to assume that if any part of one RCU read-side critical -section precedes a given grace period, and if any part of another RCU -read-side critical section follows that same grace period, then all of -the first RCU read-side critical section must precede all of the second. -However, this just isn't the case: A single grace period does not -partition the set of RCU read-side critical sections. -An example of this situation can be illustrated as follows, where -x, y, and z are initially all zero: - -

    -
    - 1 void thread0(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
- 5   WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
- 6   rcu_read_unlock();
- 7 }
- 8
- 9 void thread1(void)
-10 {
-11   r1 = READ_ONCE(a);
-12   synchronize_rcu();
-13   WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);
-14 }
-15
-16 void thread2(void)
-17 {
-18   rcu_read_lock();
-19   r2 = READ_ONCE(b);
-20   r3 = READ_ONCE(c);
-21   rcu_read_unlock();
-22 }
-
    -
    - -

    -It turns out that the outcome: - -

    -
    -(r1 == 1 && r2 == 0 && r3 == 1)
-
    -
    - -is entirely possible. -The following figure show how this can happen, with each circled -QS indicating the point at which RCU recorded a -quiescent state for each thread, that is, a state in which -RCU knows that the thread cannot be in the midst of an RCU read-side -critical section that started before the current grace period: - -

    GPpartitionReaders1.svg

    - -

    -If it is necessary to partition RCU read-side critical sections in this -manner, it is necessary to use two grace periods, where the first -grace period is known to end before the second grace period starts: - -

    -
    - 1 void thread0(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
- 5   WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
- 6   rcu_read_unlock();
- 7 }
- 8
- 9 void thread1(void)
-10 {
-11   r1 = READ_ONCE(a);
-12   synchronize_rcu();
-13   WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);
-14 }
-15
-16 void thread2(void)
-17 {
-18   r2 = READ_ONCE(c);
-19   synchronize_rcu();
-20   WRITE_ONCE(d, 1);
-21 }
-22
-23 void thread3(void)
-24 {
-25   rcu_read_lock();
-26   r3 = READ_ONCE(b);
-27   r4 = READ_ONCE(d);
-28   rcu_read_unlock();
-29 }
-
    -
    - -

    -Here, if (r1 == 1), then -thread0()'s write to b must happen -before the end of thread1()'s grace period. -If in addition (r4 == 1), then -thread3()'s read from b must happen -after the beginning of thread2()'s grace period. -If it is also the case that (r2 == 1), then the -end of thread1()'s grace period must precede the -beginning of thread2()'s grace period. -This mean that the two RCU read-side critical sections cannot overlap, -guaranteeing that (r3 == 1). -As a result, the outcome: - -

    -
    -(r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && r3 == 0 && r4 == 1)
-
    -
    - -cannot happen. - -

    -This non-requirement was also non-premeditated, but became apparent -when studying RCU's interaction with memory ordering. - -

    -Read-Side Critical Sections Don't Partition Grace Periods

    - -

    -It is also tempting to assume that if an RCU read-side critical section -happens between a pair of grace periods, then those grace periods cannot -overlap. -However, this temptation leads nowhere good, as can be illustrated by -the following, with all variables initially zero: - -

    -
    - 1 void thread0(void)
- 2 {
- 3   rcu_read_lock();
- 4   WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
- 5   WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
- 6   rcu_read_unlock();
- 7 }
- 8
- 9 void thread1(void)
-10 {
-11   r1 = READ_ONCE(a);
-12   synchronize_rcu();
-13   WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);
-14 }
-15
-16 void thread2(void)
-17 {
-18   rcu_read_lock();
-19   WRITE_ONCE(d, 1);
-20   r2 = READ_ONCE(c);
-21   rcu_read_unlock();
-22 }
-23
-24 void thread3(void)
-25 {
-26   r3 = READ_ONCE(d);
-27   synchronize_rcu();
-28   WRITE_ONCE(e, 1);
-29 }
-30
-31 void thread4(void)
-32 {
-33   rcu_read_lock();
-34   r4 = READ_ONCE(b);
-35   r5 = READ_ONCE(e);
-36   rcu_read_unlock();
-37 }
-
    -
    - -

    -In this case, the outcome: - -

    -
    -(r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && r3 == 1 && r4 == 0 && r5 == 1)
-
    -
    - -is entirely possible, as illustrated below: - -

    ReadersPartitionGP1.svg

    - -

    -Again, an RCU read-side critical section can overlap almost all of a -given grace period, just so long as it does not overlap the entire -grace period. -As a result, an RCU read-side critical section cannot partition a pair -of RCU grace periods. - -

    @@QQ@@ -How long a sequence of grace periods, each separated by an RCU read-side -critical section, would be required to partition the RCU read-side -critical sections at the beginning and end of the chain? -

    @@QQA@@ -In theory, an infinite number. -In practice, an unknown number that is sensitive to both implementation -details and timing considerations. -Therefore, even in practice, RCU users must abide by the theoretical rather -than the practical answer. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -Disabling Preemption Does Not Block Grace Periods

    - -

    -There was a time when disabling preemption on any given CPU would block -subsequent grace periods. -However, this was an accident of implementation and is not a requirement. -And in the current Linux-kernel implementation, disabling preemption -on a given CPU in fact does not block grace periods, as Oleg Nesterov -demonstrated. - -

    -If you need a preempt-disable region to block grace periods, you need to add -rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), for example -as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 preempt_disable();
- 2 rcu_read_lock();
- 3 do_something();
- 4 rcu_read_unlock();
- 5 preempt_enable();
- 6
- 7 /* Spinlocks implicitly disable preemption. */
- 8 spin_lock(&mylock);
- 9 rcu_read_lock();
-10 do_something();
-11 rcu_read_unlock();
-12 spin_unlock(&mylock);
-
    -
    - -

    -In theory, you could enter the RCU read-side critical section first, -but it is more efficient to keep the entire RCU read-side critical -section contained in the preempt-disable region as shown above. -Of course, RCU read-side critical sections that extend outside of -preempt-disable regions will work correctly, but such critical sections -can be preempted, which forces rcu_read_unlock() to do -more work. -And no, this is not an invitation to enclose all of your RCU -read-side critical sections within preempt-disable regions, because -doing so would degrade real-time response. - -

    -This non-requirement appeared with preemptible RCU. -If you need a grace period that waits on non-preemptible code regions, use -RCU-sched. - -

    Parallelism Facts of Life

    - -

    -These parallelism facts of life are by no means specific to RCU, but -the RCU implementation must abide by them. -They therefore bear repeating: - -

      -
    1. Any CPU or task may be delayed at any time, - and any attempts to avoid these delays by disabling - preemption, interrupts, or whatever are completely futile. - This is most obvious in preemptible user-level - environments and in virtualized environments (where - a given guest OS's VCPUs can be preempted at any time by - the underlying hypervisor), but can also happen in bare-metal - environments due to ECC errors, NMIs, and other hardware - events. - Although a delay of more than about 20 seconds can result - in splats, the RCU implementation is obligated to use - algorithms that can tolerate extremely long delays, but where - “extremely long” is not long enough to allow - wrap-around when incrementing a 64-bit counter. -
    2. Both the compiler and the CPU can reorder memory accesses. - Where it matters, RCU must use compiler directives and - memory-barrier instructions to preserve ordering. -
    3. Conflicting writes to memory locations in any given cache line - will result in expensive cache misses. - Greater numbers of concurrent writes and more-frequent - concurrent writes will result in more dramatic slowdowns. - RCU is therefore obligated to use algorithms that have - sufficient locality to avoid significant performance and - scalability problems. -
    4. As a rough rule of thumb, only one CPU's worth of processing - may be carried out under the protection of any given exclusive - lock. - RCU must therefore use scalable locking designs. -
    5. Counters are finite, especially on 32-bit systems. - RCU's use of counters must therefore tolerate counter wrap, - or be designed such that counter wrap would take way more - time than a single system is likely to run. - An uptime of ten years is quite possible, a runtime - of a century much less so. - As an example of the latter, RCU's dyntick-idle nesting counter - allows 54 bits for interrupt nesting level (this counter - is 64 bits even on a 32-bit system). - Overflowing this counter requires 254 - half-interrupts on a given CPU without that CPU ever going idle. - If a half-interrupt happened every microsecond, it would take - 570 years of runtime to overflow this counter, which is currently - believed to be an acceptably long time. -
    6. Linux systems can have thousands of CPUs running a single - Linux kernel in a single shared-memory environment. - RCU must therefore pay close attention to high-end scalability. -
    - -

    -This last parallelism fact of life means that RCU must pay special -attention to the preceding facts of life. -The idea that Linux might scale to systems with thousands of CPUs would -have been met with some skepticism in the 1990s, but these requirements -would have otherwise have been unsurprising, even in the early 1990s. - -

    Quality-of-Implementation Requirements

    - -

    -These sections list quality-of-implementation requirements. -Although an RCU implementation that ignores these requirements could -still be used, it would likely be subject to limitations that would -make it inappropriate for industrial-strength production use. -Classes of quality-of-implementation requirements are as follows: - -

      -
    1. Specialization -
    2. Performance and Scalability -
    3. Composability -
    4. Corner Cases -
    - -

    -These classes is covered in the following sections. - -

    Specialization

    - -

    -RCU is and always has been intended primarily for read-mostly situations, -which means that RCU's read-side primitives are optimized, often at the -expense of its update-side primitives. -Experience thus far is captured by the following list of situations: - -

      -
    1. Read-mostly data, where stale and inconsistent data is not - a problem: RCU works great! -
    2. Read-mostly data, where data must be consistent: - RCU works well. -
    3. Read-write data, where data must be consistent: - RCU might work OK. - Or not. -
    4. Write-mostly data, where data must be consistent: - RCU is very unlikely to be the right tool for the job, - with the following exceptions, where RCU can provide: -
        -
      1. Existence guarantees for update-friendly mechanisms. -
      2. Wait-free read-side primitives for real-time use. -
      -
    - -

    -This focus on read-mostly situations means that RCU must interoperate -with other synchronization primitives. -For example, the add_gp() and remove_gp_synchronous() -examples discussed earlier use RCU to protect readers and locking to -coordinate updaters. -However, the need extends much farther, requiring that a variety of -synchronization primitives be legal within RCU read-side critical sections, -including spinlocks, sequence locks, atomic operations, reference -counters, and memory barriers. - -

    @@QQ@@ -What about sleeping locks? -

    @@QQA@@ -These are forbidden within Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical sections -because it is not legal to place a quiescent state (in this case, -voluntary context switch) within an RCU read-side critical section. -However, sleeping locks may be used within userspace RCU read-side critical -sections, and also within Linux-kernel sleepable RCU -(SRCU) -read-side critical sections. -In addition, the -rt patchset turns spinlocks into a sleeping locks so -that the corresponding critical sections can be preempted, which -also means that these sleeplockified spinlocks (but not other sleeping locks!) -may be acquire within -rt-Linux-kernel RCU read-side critical sections. - -

    -Note that it is legal for a normal RCU read-side critical section -to conditionally acquire a sleeping locks (as in mutex_trylock()), -but only as long as it does not loop indefinitely attempting to -conditionally acquire that sleeping locks. -The key point is that things like mutex_trylock() -either return with the mutex held, or return an error indication if -the mutex was not immediately available. -Either way, mutex_trylock() returns immediately without sleeping. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -It often comes as a surprise that many algorithms do not require a -consistent view of data, but many can function in that mode, -with network routing being the poster child. -Internet routing algorithms take significant time to propagate -updates, so that by the time an update arrives at a given system, -that system has been sending network traffic the wrong way for -a considerable length of time. -Having a few threads continue to send traffic the wrong way for a -few more milliseconds is clearly not a problem: In the worst case, -TCP retransmissions will eventually get the data where it needs to go. -In general, when tracking the state of the universe outside of the -computer, some level of inconsistency must be tolerated due to -speed-of-light delays if nothing else. - -

    -Furthermore, uncertainty about external state is inherent in many cases. -For example, a pair of veternarians might use heartbeat to determine -whether or not a given cat was alive. -But how long should they wait after the last heartbeat to decide that -the cat is in fact dead? -Waiting less than 400 milliseconds makes no sense because this would -mean that a relaxed cat would be considered to cycle between death -and life more than 100 times per minute. -Moreover, just as with human beings, a cat's heart might stop for -some period of time, so the exact wait period is a judgment call. -One of our pair of veternarians might wait 30 seconds before pronouncing -the cat dead, while the other might insist on waiting a full minute. -The two veternarians would then disagree on the state of the cat during -the final 30 seconds of the minute following the last heartbeat. - -

    -Interestingly enough, this same situation applies to hardware. -When push comes to shove, how do we tell whether or not some -external server has failed? -We send messages to it periodically, and declare it failed if we -don't receive a response within a given period of time. -Policy decisions can usually tolerate short -periods of inconsistency. -The policy was decided some time ago, and is only now being put into -effect, so a few milliseconds of delay is normally inconsequential. - -

    -However, there are algorithms that absolutely must see consistent data. -For example, the translation between a user-level SystemV semaphore -ID to the corresponding in-kernel data structure is protected by RCU, -but it is absolutely forbidden to update a semaphore that has just been -removed. -In the Linux kernel, this need for consistency is accommodated by acquiring -spinlocks located in the in-kernel data structure from within -the RCU read-side critical section, and this is indicated by the -green box in the figure above. -Many other techniques may be used, and are in fact used within the -Linux kernel. - -

    -In short, RCU is not required to maintain consistency, and other -mechanisms may be used in concert with RCU when consistency is required. -RCU's specialization allows it to do its job extremely well, and its -ability to interoperate with other synchronization mechanisms allows -the right mix of synchronization tools to be used for a given job. - -

    Performance and Scalability

    - -

    -Energy efficiency is a critical component of performance today, -and Linux-kernel RCU implementations must therefore avoid unnecessarily -awakening idle CPUs. -I cannot claim that this requirement was premeditated. -In fact, I learned of it during a telephone conversation in which I -was given “frank and open” feedback on the importance -of energy efficiency in battery-powered systems and on specific -energy-efficiency shortcomings of the Linux-kernel RCU implementation. -In my experience, the battery-powered embedded community will consider -any unnecessary wakeups to be extremely unfriendly acts. -So much so that mere Linux-kernel-mailing-list posts are -insufficient to vent their ire. - -

    -Memory consumption is not particularly important for in most -situations, and has become decreasingly -so as memory sizes have expanded and memory -costs have plummeted. -However, as I learned from Matt Mackall's -bloatwatch -efforts, memory footprint is critically important on single-CPU systems with -non-preemptible (CONFIG_PREEMPT=n) kernels, and thus -tiny RCU -was born. -Josh Triplett has since taken over the small-memory banner with his -Linux kernel tinification -project, which resulted in -SRCU -becoming optional for those kernels not needing it. - -

    -The remaining performance requirements are, for the most part, -unsurprising. -For example, in keeping with RCU's read-side specialization, -rcu_dereference() should have negligible overhead (for -example, suppression of a few minor compiler optimizations). -Similarly, in non-preemptible environments, rcu_read_lock() and -rcu_read_unlock() should have exactly zero overhead. - -

    -In preemptible environments, in the case where the RCU read-side -critical section was not preempted (as will be the case for the -highest-priority real-time process), rcu_read_lock() and -rcu_read_unlock() should have minimal overhead. -In particular, they should not contain atomic read-modify-write -operations, memory-barrier instructions, preemption disabling, -interrupt disabling, or backwards branches. -However, in the case where the RCU read-side critical section was preempted, -rcu_read_unlock() may acquire spinlocks and disable interrupts. -This is why it is better to nest an RCU read-side critical section -within a preempt-disable region than vice versa, at least in cases -where that critical section is short enough to avoid unduly degrading -real-time latencies. - -

    -The synchronize_rcu() grace-period-wait primitive is -optimized for throughput. -It may therefore incur several milliseconds of latency in addition to -the duration of the longest RCU read-side critical section. -On the other hand, multiple concurrent invocations of -synchronize_rcu() are required to use batching optimizations -so that they can be satisfied by a single underlying grace-period-wait -operation. -For example, in the Linux kernel, it is not unusual for a single -grace-period-wait operation to serve more than -1,000 separate invocations -of synchronize_rcu(), thus amortizing the per-invocation -overhead down to nearly zero. -However, the grace-period optimization is also required to avoid -measurable degradation of real-time scheduling and interrupt latencies. - -

    -In some cases, the multi-millisecond synchronize_rcu() -latencies are unacceptable. -In these cases, synchronize_rcu_expedited() may be used -instead, reducing the grace-period latency down to a few tens of -microseconds on small systems, at least in cases where the RCU read-side -critical sections are short. -There are currently no special latency requirements for -synchronize_rcu_expedited() on large systems, but, -consistent with the empirical nature of the RCU specification, -that is subject to change. -However, there most definitely are scalability requirements: -A storm of synchronize_rcu_expedited() invocations on 4096 -CPUs should at least make reasonable forward progress. -In return for its shorter latencies, synchronize_rcu_expedited() -is permitted to impose modest degradation of real-time latency -on non-idle online CPUs. -That said, it will likely be necessary to take further steps to reduce this -degradation, hopefully to roughly that of a scheduling-clock interrupt. - -

    -There are a number of situations where even -synchronize_rcu_expedited()'s reduced grace-period -latency is unacceptable. -In these situations, the asynchronous call_rcu() can be -used in place of synchronize_rcu() as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 struct foo {
- 2   int a;
- 3   int b;
- 4   struct rcu_head rh;
- 5 };
- 6
- 7 static void remove_gp_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp)
- 8 {
- 9   struct foo *p = container_of(rhp, struct foo, rh);
-10
-11   kfree(p);
-12 }
-13
-14 bool remove_gp_asynchronous(void)
-15 {
-16   struct foo *p;
-17
-18   spin_lock(&gp_lock);
-19   p = rcu_dereference(gp);
-20   if (!p) {
-21     spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-22     return false;
-23   }
-24   rcu_assign_pointer(gp, NULL);
-25   call_rcu(&p->rh, remove_gp_cb);
-26   spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-27   return true;
-28 }
-
    -
    - -

    -A definition of struct foo is finally needed, and appears -on lines 1-5. -The function remove_gp_cb() is passed to call_rcu() -on line 25, and will be invoked after the end of a subsequent -grace period. -This gets the same effect as remove_gp_synchronous(), -but without forcing the updater to wait for a grace period to elapse. -The call_rcu() function may be used in a number of -situations where neither synchronize_rcu() nor -synchronize_rcu_expedited() would be legal, -including within preempt-disable code, local_bh_disable() code, -interrupt-disable code, and interrupt handlers. -However, even call_rcu() is illegal within NMI handlers -and from offline CPUs. -The callback function (remove_gp_cb() in this case) will be -executed within softirq (software interrupt) environment within the -Linux kernel, -either within a real softirq handler or under the protection -of local_bh_disable(). -In both the Linux kernel and in userspace, it is bad practice to -write an RCU callback function that takes too long. -Long-running operations should be relegated to separate threads or -(in the Linux kernel) workqueues. - -

    @@QQ@@ -Why does line 19 use rcu_access_pointer()? -After all, call_rcu() on line 25 stores into the -structure, which would interact badly with concurrent insertions. -Doesn't this mean that rcu_dereference() is required? -

    @@QQA@@ -Presumably the ->gp_lock acquired on line 18 excludes -any changes, including any insertions that rcu_dereference() -would protect against. -Therefore, any insertions will be delayed until after ->gp_lock -is released on line 25, which in turn means that -rcu_access_pointer() suffices. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -However, all that remove_gp_cb() is doing is -invoking kfree() on the data element. -This is a common idiom, and is supported by kfree_rcu(), -which allows “fire and forget” operation as shown below: - -

    -
    - 1 struct foo {
- 2   int a;
- 3   int b;
- 4   struct rcu_head rh;
- 5 };
- 6
- 7 bool remove_gp_faf(void)
- 8 {
- 9   struct foo *p;
-10
-11   spin_lock(&gp_lock);
-12   p = rcu_dereference(gp);
-13   if (!p) {
-14     spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-15     return false;
-16   }
-17   rcu_assign_pointer(gp, NULL);
-18   kfree_rcu(p, rh);
-19   spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-20   return true;
-21 }
-
    -
    - -

    -Note that remove_gp_faf() simply invokes -kfree_rcu() and proceeds, without any need to pay any -further attention to the subsequent grace period and kfree(). -It is permissible to invoke kfree_rcu() from the same -environments as for call_rcu(). -Interestingly enough, DYNIX/ptx had the equivalents of -call_rcu() and kfree_rcu(), but not -synchronize_rcu(). -This was due to the fact that RCU was not heavily used within DYNIX/ptx, -so the very few places that needed something like -synchronize_rcu() simply open-coded it. - -

    @@QQ@@ -Earlier it was claimed that call_rcu() and -kfree_rcu() allowed updaters to avoid being blocked -by readers. -But how can that be correct, given that the invocation of the callback -and the freeing of the memory (respectively) must still wait for -a grace period to elapse? -

    @@QQA@@ -We could define things this way, but keep in mind that this sort of -definition would say that updates in garbage-collected languages -cannot complete until the next time the garbage collector runs, -which does not seem at all reasonable. -The key point is that in most cases, an updater using either -call_rcu() or kfree_rcu() can proceed to the -next update as soon as it has invoked call_rcu() or -kfree_rcu(), without having to wait for a subsequent -grace period. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -But what if the updater must wait for the completion of code to be -executed after the end of the grace period, but has other tasks -that can be carried out in the meantime? -The polling-style get_state_synchronize_rcu() and -cond_synchronize_rcu() functions may be used for this -purpose, as shown below: - -

    -
    - 1 bool remove_gp_poll(void)
- 2 {
- 3   struct foo *p;
- 4   unsigned long s;
- 5
- 6   spin_lock(&gp_lock);
- 7   p = rcu_access_pointer(gp);
- 8   if (!p) {
- 9     spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-10     return false;
-11   }
-12   rcu_assign_pointer(gp, NULL);
-13   spin_unlock(&gp_lock);
-14   s = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
-15   do_something_while_waiting();
-16   cond_synchronize_rcu(s);
-17   kfree(p);
-18   return true;
-19 }
-
    -
    - -

    -On line 14, get_state_synchronize_rcu() obtains a -“cookie” from RCU, -then line 15 carries out other tasks, -and finally, line 16 returns immediately if a grace period has -elapsed in the meantime, but otherwise waits as required. -The need for get_state_synchronize_rcu and -cond_synchronize_rcu() has appeared quite recently, -so it is too early to tell whether they will stand the test of time. - -

    -RCU thus provides a range of tools to allow updaters to strike the -required tradeoff between latency, flexibility and CPU overhead. - -

    Composability

    - -

    -Composability has received much attention in recent years, perhaps in part -due to the collision of multicore hardware with object-oriented techniques -designed in single-threaded environments for single-threaded use. -And in theory, RCU read-side critical sections may be composed, and in -fact may be nested arbitrarily deeply. -In practice, as with all real-world implementations of composable -constructs, there are limitations. - -

    -Implementations of RCU for which rcu_read_lock() -and rcu_read_unlock() generate no code, such as -Linux-kernel RCU when CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, can be -nested arbitrarily deeply. -After all, there is no overhead. -Except that if all these instances of rcu_read_lock() -and rcu_read_unlock() are visible to the compiler, -compilation will eventually fail due to exhausting memory, -mass storage, or user patience, whichever comes first. -If the nesting is not visible to the compiler, as is the case with -mutually recursive functions each in its own translation unit, -stack overflow will result. -If the nesting takes the form of loops, either the control variable -will overflow or (in the Linux kernel) you will get an RCU CPU stall warning. -Nevertheless, this class of RCU implementations is one -of the most composable constructs in existence. - -

    -RCU implementations that explicitly track nesting depth -are limited by the nesting-depth counter. -For example, the Linux kernel's preemptible RCU limits nesting to -INT_MAX. -This should suffice for almost all practical purposes. -That said, a consecutive pair of RCU read-side critical sections -between which there is an operation that waits for a grace period -cannot be enclosed in another RCU read-side critical section. -This is because it is not legal to wait for a grace period within -an RCU read-side critical section: To do so would result either -in deadlock or -in RCU implicitly splitting the enclosing RCU read-side critical -section, neither of which is conducive to a long-lived and prosperous -kernel. - -

    -It is worth noting that RCU is not alone in limiting composability. -For example, many transactional-memory implementations prohibit -composing a pair of transactions separated by an irrevocable -operation (for example, a network receive operation). -For another example, lock-based critical sections can be composed -surprisingly freely, but only if deadlock is avoided. - -

    -In short, although RCU read-side critical sections are highly composable, -care is required in some situations, just as is the case for any other -composable synchronization mechanism. - -

    Corner Cases

    - -

    -A given RCU workload might have an endless and intense stream of -RCU read-side critical sections, perhaps even so intense that there -was never a point in time during which there was not at least one -RCU read-side critical section in flight. -RCU cannot allow this situation to block grace periods: As long as -all the RCU read-side critical sections are finite, grace periods -must also be finite. - -

    -That said, preemptible RCU implementations could potentially result -in RCU read-side critical sections being preempted for long durations, -which has the effect of creating a long-duration RCU read-side -critical section. -This situation can arise only in heavily loaded systems, but systems using -real-time priorities are of course more vulnerable. -Therefore, RCU priority boosting is provided to help deal with this -case. -That said, the exact requirements on RCU priority boosting will likely -evolve as more experience accumulates. - -

    -Other workloads might have very high update rates. -Although one can argue that such workloads should instead use -something other than RCU, the fact remains that RCU must -handle such workloads gracefully. -This requirement is another factor driving batching of grace periods, -but it is also the driving force behind the checks for large numbers -of queued RCU callbacks in the call_rcu() code path. -Finally, high update rates should not delay RCU read-side critical -sections, although some read-side delays can occur when using -synchronize_rcu_expedited(), courtesy of this function's use -of try_stop_cpus(). -(In the future, synchronize_rcu_expedited() will be -converted to use lighter-weight inter-processor interrupts (IPIs), -but this will still disturb readers, though to a much smaller degree.) - -

    -Although all three of these corner cases were understood in the early -1990s, a simple user-level test consisting of close(open(path)) -in a tight loop -in the early 2000s suddenly provided a much deeper appreciation of the -high-update-rate corner case. -This test also motivated addition of some RCU code to react to high update -rates, for example, if a given CPU finds itself with more than 10,000 -RCU callbacks queued, it will cause RCU to take evasive action by -more aggressively starting grace periods and more aggressively forcing -completion of grace-period processing. -This evasive action causes the grace period to complete more quickly, -but at the cost of restricting RCU's batching optimizations, thus -increasing the CPU overhead incurred by that grace period. - -

    -Software-Engineering Requirements

    - -

    -Between Murphy's Law and “To err is human”, it is necessary to -guard against mishaps and misuse: - -

      -
    1. It is all too easy to forget to use rcu_read_lock() - everywhere that it is needed, so kernels built with - CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y will spat if - rcu_dereference() is used outside of an - RCU read-side critical section. - Update-side code can use rcu_dereference_protected(), - which takes a - lockdep expression - to indicate what is providing the protection. - If the indicated protection is not provided, a lockdep splat - is emitted. - -

      - Code shared between readers and updaters can use - rcu_dereference_check(), which also takes a - lockdep expression, and emits a lockdep splat if neither - rcu_read_lock() nor the indicated protection - is in place. - In addition, rcu_dereference_raw() is used in those - (hopefully rare) cases where the required protection cannot - be easily described. - Finally, rcu_read_lock_held() is provided to - allow a function to verify that it has been invoked within - an RCU read-side critical section. - I was made aware of this set of requirements shortly after Thomas - Gleixner audited a number of RCU uses. -

    2. A given function might wish to check for RCU-related preconditions - upon entry, before using any other RCU API. - The rcu_lockdep_assert() does this job, - asserting the expression in kernels having lockdep enabled - and doing nothing otherwise. -
    3. It is also easy to forget to use rcu_assign_pointer() - and rcu_dereference(), perhaps (incorrectly) - substituting a simple assignment. - To catch this sort of error, a given RCU-protected pointer may be - tagged with __rcu, after which running sparse - with CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y will complain - about simple-assignment accesses to that pointer. - Arnd Bergmann made me aware of this requirement, and also - supplied the needed - patch series. -
    4. Kernels built with CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y - will splat if a data element is passed to call_rcu() - twice in a row, without a grace period in between. - (This error is similar to a double free.) - The corresponding rcu_head structures that are - dynamically allocated are automatically tracked, but - rcu_head structures allocated on the stack - must be initialized with init_rcu_head_on_stack() - and cleaned up with destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(). - Similarly, statically allocated non-stack rcu_head - structures must be initialized with init_rcu_head() - and cleaned up with destroy_rcu_head(). - Mathieu Desnoyers made me aware of this requirement, and also - supplied the needed - patch. -
    5. An infinite loop in an RCU read-side critical section will - eventually trigger an RCU CPU stall warning splat, with - the duration of “eventually” being controlled by the - RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT Kconfig option, or, - alternatively, by the - rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_timeout boot/sysfs - parameter. - However, RCU is not obligated to produce this splat - unless there is a grace period waiting on that particular - RCU read-side critical section. -

      - Some extreme workloads might intentionally delay - RCU grace periods, and systems running those workloads can - be booted with rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_suppress - to suppress the splats. - This kernel parameter may also be set via sysfs. - Furthermore, RCU CPU stall warnings are counter-productive - during sysrq dumps and during panics. - RCU therefore supplies the rcu_sysrq_start() and - rcu_sysrq_end() API members to be called before - and after long sysrq dumps. - RCU also supplies the rcu_panic() notifier that is - automatically invoked at the beginning of a panic to suppress - further RCU CPU stall warnings. - -

      - This requirement made itself known in the early 1990s, pretty - much the first time that it was necessary to debug a CPU stall. - That said, the initial implementation in DYNIX/ptx was quite - generic in comparison with that of Linux. -

    6. Although it would be very good to detect pointers leaking out - of RCU read-side critical sections, there is currently no - good way of doing this. - One complication is the need to distinguish between pointers - leaking and pointers that have been handed off from RCU to - some other synchronization mechanism, for example, reference - counting. -
    7. In kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y, RCU-related - information is provided via both debugfs and event tracing. -
    8. Open-coded use of rcu_assign_pointer() and - rcu_dereference() to create typical linked - data structures can be surprisingly error-prone. - Therefore, RCU-protected - linked lists - and, more recently, RCU-protected - hash tables - are available. - Many other special-purpose RCU-protected data structures are - available in the Linux kernel and the userspace RCU library. -
    9. Some linked structures are created at compile time, but still - require __rcu checking. - The RCU_POINTER_INITIALIZER() macro serves this - purpose. -
    10. It is not necessary to use rcu_assign_pointer() - when creating linked structures that are to be published via - a single external pointer. - The RCU_INIT_POINTER() macro is provided for - this task and also for assigning NULL pointers - at runtime. -
    - -

    -This not a hard-and-fast list: RCU's diagnostic capabilities will -continue to be guided by the number and type of usage bugs found -in real-world RCU usage. - -

    Linux Kernel Complications

    - -

    -The Linux kernel provides an interesting environment for all kinds of -software, including RCU. -Some of the relevant points of interest are as follows: - -

      -
    1. Configuration. -
    2. Firmware Interface. -
    3. Early Boot. -
    4. - Interrupts and non-maskable interrupts (NMIs). -
    5. Loadable Modules. -
    6. Hotplug CPU. -
    7. Scheduler and RCU. -
    8. Tracing and RCU. -
    9. Energy Efficiency. -
    10. Memory Efficiency. -
    11. - Performance, Scalability, Response Time, and Reliability. -
    - -

    -This list is probably incomplete, but it does give a feel for the -most notable Linux-kernel complications. -Each of the following sections covers one of the above topics. - -

    Configuration

    - -

    -RCU's goal is automatic configuration, so that almost nobody -needs to worry about RCU's Kconfig options. -And for almost all users, RCU does in fact work well -“out of the box.” - -

    -However, there are specialized use cases that are handled by -kernel boot parameters and Kconfig options. -Unfortunately, the Kconfig system will explicitly ask users -about new Kconfig options, which requires almost all of them -be hidden behind a CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT Kconfig option. - -

    -This all should be quite obvious, but the fact remains that -Linus Torvalds recently had to -remind -me of this requirement. - -

    Firmware Interface

    - -

    -In many cases, kernel obtains information about the system from the -firmware, and sometimes things are lost in translation. -Or the translation is accurate, but the original message is bogus. - -

    -For example, some systems' firmware overreports the number of CPUs, -sometimes by a large factor. -If RCU naively believed the firmware, as it used to do, -it would create too many per-CPU kthreads. -Although the resulting system will still run correctly, the extra -kthreads needlessly consume memory and can cause confusion -when they show up in ps listings. - -

    -RCU must therefore wait for a given CPU to actually come online before -it can allow itself to believe that the CPU actually exists. -The resulting “ghost CPUs” (which are never going to -come online) cause a number of -interesting complications. - -

    Early Boot

    - -

    -The Linux kernel's boot sequence is an interesting process, -and RCU is used early, even before rcu_init() -is invoked. -In fact, a number of RCU's primitives can be used as soon as the -initial task's task_struct is available and the -boot CPU's per-CPU variables are set up. -The read-side primitives (rcu_read_lock(), -rcu_read_unlock(), rcu_dereference(), -and rcu_access_pointer()) will operate normally very early on, -as will rcu_assign_pointer(). - -

    -Although call_rcu() may be invoked at any -time during boot, callbacks are not guaranteed to be invoked until after -the scheduler is fully up and running. -This delay in callback invocation is due to the fact that RCU does not -invoke callbacks until it is fully initialized, and this full initialization -cannot occur until after the scheduler has initialized itself to the -point where RCU can spawn and run its kthreads. -In theory, it would be possible to invoke callbacks earlier, -however, this is not a panacea because there would be severe restrictions -on what operations those callbacks could invoke. - -

    -Perhaps surprisingly, synchronize_rcu(), -synchronize_rcu_bh() -(discussed below), -and -synchronize_sched() -will all operate normally -during very early boot, the reason being that there is only one CPU -and preemption is disabled. -This means that the call synchronize_rcu() (or friends) -itself is a quiescent -state and thus a grace period, so the early-boot implementation can -be a no-op. - -

    -Both synchronize_rcu_bh() and synchronize_sched() -continue to operate normally through the remainder of boot, courtesy -of the fact that preemption is disabled across their RCU read-side -critical sections and also courtesy of the fact that there is still -only one CPU. -However, once the scheduler starts initializing, preemption is enabled. -There is still only a single CPU, but the fact that preemption is enabled -means that the no-op implementation of synchronize_rcu() no -longer works in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernels. -Therefore, as soon as the scheduler starts initializing, the early-boot -fastpath is disabled. -This means that synchronize_rcu() switches to its runtime -mode of operation where it posts callbacks, which in turn means that -any call to synchronize_rcu() will block until the corresponding -callback is invoked. -Unfortunately, the callback cannot be invoked until RCU's runtime -grace-period machinery is up and running, which cannot happen until -the scheduler has initialized itself sufficiently to allow RCU's -kthreads to be spawned. -Therefore, invoking synchronize_rcu() during scheduler -initialization can result in deadlock. - -

    @@QQ@@ -So what happens with synchronize_rcu() during -scheduler initialization for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n -kernels? -

    @@QQA@@ -In CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernel, synchronize_rcu() -maps directly to synchronize_sched(). -Therefore, synchronize_rcu() works normally throughout -boot in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels. -However, your code must also work in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernels, -so it is still necessary to avoid invoking synchronize_rcu() -during scheduler initialization. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -I learned of these boot-time requirements as a result of a series of -system hangs. - -

    Interrupts and NMIs

    - -

    -The Linux kernel has interrupts, and RCU read-side critical sections are -legal within interrupt handlers and within interrupt-disabled regions -of code, as are invocations of call_rcu(). - -

    -Some Linux-kernel architectures can enter an interrupt handler from -non-idle process context, and then just never leave it, instead stealthily -transitioning back to process context. -This trick is sometimes used to invoke system calls from inside the kernel. -These “half-interrupts” mean that RCU has to be very careful -about how it counts interrupt nesting levels. -I learned of this requirement the hard way during a rewrite -of RCU's dyntick-idle code. - -

    -The Linux kernel has non-maskable interrupts (NMIs), and -RCU read-side critical sections are legal within NMI handlers. -Thankfully, RCU update-side primitives, including -call_rcu(), are prohibited within NMI handlers. - -

    -The name notwithstanding, some Linux-kernel architectures -can have nested NMIs, which RCU must handle correctly. -Andy Lutomirski -surprised me -with this requirement; -he also kindly surprised me with -an algorithm -that meets this requirement. - -

    Loadable Modules

    - -

    -The Linux kernel has loadable modules, and these modules can -also be unloaded. -After a given module has been unloaded, any attempt to call -one of its functions results in a segmentation fault. -The module-unload functions must therefore cancel any -delayed calls to loadable-module functions, for example, -any outstanding mod_timer() must be dealt with -via del_timer_sync() or similar. - -

    -Unfortunately, there is no way to cancel an RCU callback; -once you invoke call_rcu(), the callback function is -going to eventually be invoked, unless the system goes down first. -Because it is normally considered socially irresponsible to crash the system -in response to a module unload request, we need some other way -to deal with in-flight RCU callbacks. - -

    -RCU therefore provides -rcu_barrier(), -which waits until all in-flight RCU callbacks have been invoked. -If a module uses call_rcu(), its exit function should therefore -prevent any future invocation of call_rcu(), then invoke -rcu_barrier(). -In theory, the underlying module-unload code could invoke -rcu_barrier() unconditionally, but in practice this would -incur unacceptable latencies. - -

    -Nikita Danilov noted this requirement for an analogous filesystem-unmount -situation, and Dipankar Sarma incorporated rcu_barrier() into RCU. -The need for rcu_barrier() for module unloading became -apparent later. - -

    Hotplug CPU

    - -

    -The Linux kernel supports CPU hotplug, which means that CPUs -can come and go. -It is of course illegal to use any RCU API member from an offline CPU. -This requirement was present from day one in DYNIX/ptx, but -on the other hand, the Linux kernel's CPU-hotplug implementation -is “interesting.” - -

    -The Linux-kernel CPU-hotplug implementation has notifiers that -are used to allow the various kernel subsystems (including RCU) -to respond appropriately to a given CPU-hotplug operation. -Most RCU operations may be invoked from CPU-hotplug notifiers, -including even normal synchronous grace-period operations -such as synchronize_rcu(). -However, expedited grace-period operations such as -synchronize_rcu_expedited() are not supported, -due to the fact that current implementations block CPU-hotplug -operations, which could result in deadlock. - -

    -In addition, all-callback-wait operations such as -rcu_barrier() are also not supported, due to the -fact that there are phases of CPU-hotplug operations where -the outgoing CPU's callbacks will not be invoked until after -the CPU-hotplug operation ends, which could also result in deadlock. - -

    Scheduler and RCU

    - -

    -RCU depends on the scheduler, and the scheduler uses RCU to -protect some of its data structures. -This means the scheduler is forbidden from acquiring -the runqueue locks and the priority-inheritance locks -in the middle of an outermost RCU read-side critical section unless either -(1) it releases them before exiting that same -RCU read-side critical section, or -(2) interrupts are disabled across -that entire RCU read-side critical section. -This same prohibition also applies (recursively!) to any lock that is acquired -while holding any lock to which this prohibition applies. -Adhering to this rule prevents preemptible RCU from invoking -rcu_read_unlock_special() while either runqueue or -priority-inheritance locks are held, thus avoiding deadlock. - -

    -Prior to v4.4, it was only necessary to disable preemption across -RCU read-side critical sections that acquired scheduler locks. -In v4.4, expedited grace periods started using IPIs, and these -IPIs could force a rcu_read_unlock() to take the slowpath. -Therefore, this expedited-grace-period change required disabling of -interrupts, not just preemption. - -

    -For RCU's part, the preemptible-RCU rcu_read_unlock() -implementation must be written carefully to avoid similar deadlocks. -In particular, rcu_read_unlock() must tolerate an -interrupt where the interrupt handler invokes both -rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(). -This possibility requires rcu_read_unlock() to use -negative nesting levels to avoid destructive recursion via -interrupt handler's use of RCU. - -

    -This pair of mutual scheduler-RCU requirements came as a -complete surprise. - -

    -As noted above, RCU makes use of kthreads, and it is necessary to -avoid excessive CPU-time accumulation by these kthreads. -This requirement was no surprise, but RCU's violation of it -when running context-switch-heavy workloads when built with -CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y -did come as a surprise [PDF]. -RCU has made good progress towards meeting this requirement, even -for context-switch-have CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y workloads, -but there is room for further improvement. - -

    Tracing and RCU

    - -

    -It is possible to use tracing on RCU code, but tracing itself -uses RCU. -For this reason, rcu_dereference_raw_notrace() -is provided for use by tracing, which avoids the destructive -recursion that could otherwise ensue. -This API is also used by virtualization in some architectures, -where RCU readers execute in environments in which tracing -cannot be used. -The tracing folks both located the requirement and provided the -needed fix, so this surprise requirement was relatively painless. - -

    Energy Efficiency

    - -

    -Interrupting idle CPUs is considered socially unacceptable, -especially by people with battery-powered embedded systems. -RCU therefore conserves energy by detecting which CPUs are -idle, including tracking CPUs that have been interrupted from idle. -This is a large part of the energy-efficiency requirement, -so I learned of this via an irate phone call. - -

    -Because RCU avoids interrupting idle CPUs, it is illegal to -execute an RCU read-side critical section on an idle CPU. -(Kernels built with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y will splat -if you try it.) -The RCU_NONIDLE() macro and _rcuidle -event tracing is provided to work around this restriction. -In addition, rcu_is_watching() may be used to -test whether or not it is currently legal to run RCU read-side -critical sections on this CPU. -I learned of the need for diagnostics on the one hand -and RCU_NONIDLE() on the other while inspecting -idle-loop code. -Steven Rostedt supplied _rcuidle event tracing, -which is used quite heavily in the idle loop. - -

    -It is similarly socially unacceptable to interrupt an -nohz_full CPU running in userspace. -RCU must therefore track nohz_full userspace -execution. -And in -CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_SYSIDLE=y -kernels, RCU must separately track idle CPUs on the one hand and -CPUs that are either idle or executing in userspace on the other. -In both cases, RCU must be able to sample state at two points in -time, and be able to determine whether or not some other CPU spent -any time idle and/or executing in userspace. - -

    -These energy-efficiency requirements have proven quite difficult to -understand and to meet, for example, there have been more than five -clean-sheet rewrites of RCU's energy-efficiency code, the last of -which was finally able to demonstrate -real energy savings running on real hardware [PDF]. -As noted earlier, -I learned of many of these requirements via angry phone calls: -Flaming me on the Linux-kernel mailing list was apparently not -sufficient to fully vent their ire at RCU's energy-efficiency bugs! - -

    Memory Efficiency

    - -

    -Although small-memory non-realtime systems can simply use Tiny RCU, -code size is only one aspect of memory efficiency. -Another aspect is the size of the rcu_head structure -used by call_rcu() and kfree_rcu(). -Although this structure contains nothing more than a pair of pointers, -it does appear in many RCU-protected data structures, including -some that are size critical. -The page structure is a case in point, as evidenced by -the many occurrences of the union keyword within that structure. - -

    -This need for memory efficiency is one reason that RCU uses hand-crafted -singly linked lists to track the rcu_head structures that -are waiting for a grace period to elapse. -It is also the reason why rcu_head structures do not contain -debug information, such as fields tracking the file and line of the -call_rcu() or kfree_rcu() that posted them. -Although this information might appear in debug-only kernel builds at some -point, in the meantime, the ->func field will often provide -the needed debug information. - -

    -However, in some cases, the need for memory efficiency leads to even -more extreme measures. -Returning to the page structure, the rcu_head field -shares storage with a great many other structures that are used at -various points in the corresponding page's lifetime. -In order to correctly resolve certain -race conditions, -the Linux kernel's memory-management subsystem needs a particular bit -to remain zero during all phases of grace-period processing, -and that bit happens to map to the bottom bit of the -rcu_head structure's ->next field. -RCU makes this guarantee as long as call_rcu() -is used to post the callback, as opposed to kfree_rcu() -or some future “lazy” -variant of call_rcu() that might one day be created for -energy-efficiency purposes. - -

    -Performance, Scalability, Response Time, and Reliability

    - -

    -Expanding on the -earlier discussion, -RCU is used heavily by hot code paths in performance-critical -portions of the Linux kernel's networking, security, virtualization, -and scheduling code paths. -RCU must therefore use efficient implementations, especially in its -read-side primitives. -To that end, it would be good if preemptible RCU's implementation -of rcu_read_lock() could be inlined, however, doing -this requires resolving #include issues with the -task_struct structure. - -

    -The Linux kernel supports hardware configurations with up to -4096 CPUs, which means that RCU must be extremely scalable. -Algorithms that involve frequent acquisitions of global locks or -frequent atomic operations on global variables simply cannot be -tolerated within the RCU implementation. -RCU therefore makes heavy use of a combining tree based on the -rcu_node structure. -RCU is required to tolerate all CPUs continuously invoking any -combination of RCU's runtime primitives with minimal per-operation -overhead. -In fact, in many cases, increasing load must decrease the -per-operation overhead, witness the batching optimizations for -synchronize_rcu(), call_rcu(), -synchronize_rcu_expedited(), and rcu_barrier(). -As a general rule, RCU must cheerfully accept whatever the -rest of the Linux kernel decides to throw at it. - -

    -The Linux kernel is used for real-time workloads, especially -in conjunction with the --rt patchset. -The real-time-latency response requirements are such that the -traditional approach of disabling preemption across RCU -read-side critical sections is inappropriate. -Kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y therefore -use an RCU implementation that allows RCU read-side critical -sections to be preempted. -This requirement made its presence known after users made it -clear that an earlier -real-time patch -did not meet their needs, in conjunction with some -RCU issues -encountered by a very early version of the -rt patchset. - -

    -In addition, RCU must make do with a sub-100-microsecond real-time latency -budget. -In fact, on smaller systems with the -rt patchset, the Linux kernel -provides sub-20-microsecond real-time latencies for the whole kernel, -including RCU. -RCU's scalability and latency must therefore be sufficient for -these sorts of configurations. -To my surprise, the sub-100-microsecond real-time latency budget - -applies to even the largest systems [PDF], -up to and including systems with 4096 CPUs. -This real-time requirement motivated the grace-period kthread, which -also simplified handling of a number of race conditions. - -

    -RCU must avoid degrading real-time response for CPU-bound threads, whether -executing in usermode (which is one use case for -CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y) or in the kernel. -That said, CPU-bound loops in the kernel must execute -cond_resched_rcu_qs() at least once per few tens of milliseconds -in order to avoid receiving an IPI from RCU. - -

    -Finally, RCU's status as a synchronization primitive means that -any RCU failure can result in arbitrary memory corruption that can be -extremely difficult to debug. -This means that RCU must be extremely reliable, which in -practice also means that RCU must have an aggressive stress-test -suite. -This stress-test suite is called rcutorture. - -

    -Although the need for rcutorture was no surprise, -the current immense popularity of the Linux kernel is posing -interesting—and perhaps unprecedented—validation -challenges. -To see this, keep in mind that there are well over one billion -instances of the Linux kernel running today, given Android -smartphones, Linux-powered televisions, and servers. -This number can be expected to increase sharply with the advent of -the celebrated Internet of Things. - -

    -Suppose that RCU contains a race condition that manifests on average -once per million years of runtime. -This bug will be occurring about three times per day across -the installed base. -RCU could simply hide behind hardware error rates, given that no one -should really expect their smartphone to last for a million years. -However, anyone taking too much comfort from this thought should -consider the fact that in most jurisdictions, a successful multi-year -test of a given mechanism, which might include a Linux kernel, -suffices for a number of types of safety-critical certifications. -In fact, rumor has it that the Linux kernel is already being used -in production for safety-critical applications. -I don't know about you, but I would feel quite bad if a bug in RCU -killed someone. -Which might explain my recent focus on validation and verification. - -

    Other RCU Flavors

    - -

    -One of the more surprising things about RCU is that there are now -no fewer than five flavors, or API families. -In addition, the primary flavor that has been the sole focus up to -this point has two different implementations, non-preemptible and -preemptible. -The other four flavors are listed below, with requirements for each -described in a separate section. - -

      -
    1. Bottom-Half Flavor -
    2. Sched Flavor -
    3. Sleepable RCU -
    4. Tasks RCU -
    5. - Waiting for Multiple Grace Periods -
    - -

    Bottom-Half Flavor

    - -

    -The softirq-disable (AKA “bottom-half”, -hence the “_bh” abbreviations) -flavor of RCU, or RCU-bh, was developed by -Dipankar Sarma to provide a flavor of RCU that could withstand the -network-based denial-of-service attacks researched by Robert -Olsson. -These attacks placed so much networking load on the system -that some of the CPUs never exited softirq execution, -which in turn prevented those CPUs from ever executing a context switch, -which, in the RCU implementation of that time, prevented grace periods -from ever ending. -The result was an out-of-memory condition and a system hang. - -

    -The solution was the creation of RCU-bh, which does -local_bh_disable() -across its read-side critical sections, and which uses the transition -from one type of softirq processing to another as a quiescent state -in addition to context switch, idle, user mode, and offline. -This means that RCU-bh grace periods can complete even when some of -the CPUs execute in softirq indefinitely, thus allowing algorithms -based on RCU-bh to withstand network-based denial-of-service attacks. - -

    -Because -rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh() -disable and re-enable softirq handlers, any attempt to start a softirq -handlers during the -RCU-bh read-side critical section will be deferred. -In this case, rcu_read_unlock_bh() -will invoke softirq processing, which can take considerable time. -One can of course argue that this softirq overhead should be associated -with the code following the RCU-bh read-side critical section rather -than rcu_read_unlock_bh(), but the fact -is that most profiling tools cannot be expected to make this sort -of fine distinction. -For example, suppose that a three-millisecond-long RCU-bh read-side -critical section executes during a time of heavy networking load. -There will very likely be an attempt to invoke at least one softirq -handler during that three milliseconds, but any such invocation will -be delayed until the time of the rcu_read_unlock_bh(). -This can of course make it appear at first glance as if -rcu_read_unlock_bh() was executing very slowly. - -

    -The -RCU-bh API -includes -rcu_read_lock_bh(), -rcu_read_unlock_bh(), -rcu_dereference_bh(), -rcu_dereference_bh_check(), -synchronize_rcu_bh(), -synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(), -call_rcu_bh(), -rcu_barrier_bh(), and -rcu_read_lock_bh_held(). - -

    Sched Flavor

    - -

    -Before preemptible RCU, waiting for an RCU grace period had the -side effect of also waiting for all pre-existing interrupt -and NMI handlers. -However, there are legitimate preemptible-RCU implementations that -do not have this property, given that any point in the code outside -of an RCU read-side critical section can be a quiescent state. -Therefore, RCU-sched was created, which follows “classic” -RCU in that an RCU-sched grace period waits for for pre-existing -interrupt and NMI handlers. -In kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, the RCU and RCU-sched -APIs have identical implementations, while kernels built with -CONFIG_PREEMPT=y provide a separate implementation for each. - -

    -Note well that in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernels, -rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched() -disable and re-enable preemption, respectively. -This means that if there was a preemption attempt during the -RCU-sched read-side critical section, rcu_read_unlock_sched() -will enter the scheduler, with all the latency and overhead entailed. -Just as with rcu_read_unlock_bh(), this can make it look -as if rcu_read_unlock_sched() was executing very slowly. -However, the highest-priority task won't be preempted, so that task -will enjoy low-overhead rcu_read_unlock_sched() invocations. - -

    -The -RCU-sched API -includes -rcu_read_lock_sched(), -rcu_read_unlock_sched(), -rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace(), -rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(), -rcu_dereference_sched(), -rcu_dereference_sched_check(), -synchronize_sched(), -synchronize_rcu_sched_expedited(), -call_rcu_sched(), -rcu_barrier_sched(), and -rcu_read_lock_sched_held(). -However, anything that disables preemption also marks an RCU-sched -read-side critical section, including -preempt_disable() and preempt_enable(), -local_irq_save() and local_irq_restore(), -and so on. - -

    Sleepable RCU

    - -

    -For well over a decade, someone saying “I need to block within -an RCU read-side critical section” was a reliable indication -that this someone did not understand RCU. -After all, if you are always blocking in an RCU read-side critical -section, you can probably afford to use a higher-overhead synchronization -mechanism. -However, that changed with the advent of the Linux kernel's notifiers, -whose RCU read-side critical -sections almost never sleep, but sometimes need to. -This resulted in the introduction of -sleepable RCU, -or SRCU. - -

    -SRCU allows different domains to be defined, with each such domain -defined by an instance of an srcu_struct structure. -A pointer to this structure must be passed in to each SRCU function, -for example, synchronize_srcu(&ss), where -ss is the srcu_struct structure. -The key benefit of these domains is that a slow SRCU reader in one -domain does not delay an SRCU grace period in some other domain. -That said, one consequence of these domains is that read-side code -must pass a “cookie” from srcu_read_lock() -to srcu_read_unlock(), for example, as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 int idx;
- 2
- 3 idx = srcu_read_lock(&ss);
- 4 do_something();
- 5 srcu_read_unlock(&ss, idx);
-
    -
    - -

    -As noted above, it is legal to block within SRCU read-side critical sections, -however, with great power comes great responsibility. -If you block forever in one of a given domain's SRCU read-side critical -sections, then that domain's grace periods will also be blocked forever. -Of course, one good way to block forever is to deadlock, which can -happen if any operation in a given domain's SRCU read-side critical -section can block waiting, either directly or indirectly, for that domain's -grace period to elapse. -For example, this results in a self-deadlock: - -

    -
    - 1 int idx;
- 2
- 3 idx = srcu_read_lock(&ss);
- 4 do_something();
- 5 synchronize_srcu(&ss);
- 6 srcu_read_unlock(&ss, idx);
-
    -
    - -

    -However, if line 5 acquired a mutex that was held across -a synchronize_srcu() for domain ss, -deadlock would still be possible. -Furthermore, if line 5 acquired a mutex that was held across -a synchronize_srcu() for some other domain ss1, -and if an ss1-domain SRCU read-side critical section -acquired another mutex that was held across as ss-domain -synchronize_srcu(), -deadlock would again be possible. -Such a deadlock cycle could extend across an arbitrarily large number -of different SRCU domains. -Again, with great power comes great responsibility. - -

    -Unlike the other RCU flavors, SRCU read-side critical sections can -run on idle and even offline CPUs. -This ability requires that srcu_read_lock() and -srcu_read_unlock() contain memory barriers, which means -that SRCU readers will run a bit slower than would RCU readers. -It also motivates the smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock() -API, which, in combination with srcu_read_unlock(), -guarantees a full memory barrier. - -

    -The -SRCU API -includes -srcu_read_lock(), -srcu_read_unlock(), -srcu_dereference(), -srcu_dereference_check(), -synchronize_srcu(), -synchronize_srcu_expedited(), -call_srcu(), -srcu_barrier(), and -srcu_read_lock_held(). -It also includes -DEFINE_SRCU(), -DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(), and -init_srcu_struct() -APIs for defining and initializing srcu_struct structures. - -

    Tasks RCU

    - -

    -Some forms of tracing use “tramopolines” to handle the -binary rewriting required to install different types of probes. -It would be good to be able to free old trampolines, which sounds -like a job for some form of RCU. -However, because it is necessary to be able to install a trace -anywhere in the code, it is not possible to use read-side markers -such as rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(). -In addition, it does not work to have these markers in the trampoline -itself, because there would need to be instructions following -rcu_read_unlock(). -Although synchronize_rcu() would guarantee that execution -reached the rcu_read_unlock(), it would not be able to -guarantee that execution had completely left the trampoline. - -

    -The solution, in the form of -Tasks RCU, -is to have implicit -read-side critical sections that are delimited by voluntary context -switches, that is, calls to schedule(), -cond_resched_rcu_qs(), and -synchronize_rcu_tasks(). -In addition, transitions to and from userspace execution also delimit -tasks-RCU read-side critical sections. - -

    -The tasks-RCU API is quite compact, consisting only of -call_rcu_tasks(), -synchronize_rcu_tasks(), and -rcu_barrier_tasks(). - -

    -Waiting for Multiple Grace Periods

    - -

    -Perhaps you have an RCU protected data structure that is accessed from -RCU read-side critical sections, from softirq handlers, and from -hardware interrupt handlers. -That is three flavors of RCU, the normal flavor, the bottom-half flavor, -and the sched flavor. -How to wait for a compound grace period? - -

    -The best approach is usually to “just say no!” and -insert rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() -around each RCU read-side critical section, regardless of what -environment it happens to be in. -But suppose that some of the RCU read-side critical sections are -on extremely hot code paths, and that use of CONFIG_PREEMPT=n -is not a viable option, so that rcu_read_lock() and -rcu_read_unlock() are not free. -What then? - -

    -You could wait on all three grace periods in succession, as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 synchronize_rcu();
- 2 synchronize_rcu_bh();
- 3 synchronize_sched();
-
    -
    - -

    -This works, but triples the update-side latency penalty. -In cases where this is not acceptable, synchronize_rcu_mult() -may be used to wait on all three flavors of grace period concurrently: - -

    -
    - 1 synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh, call_rcu_sched);
-
    -
    - -

    -But what if it is necessary to also wait on SRCU? -This can be done as follows: - -

    -
    - 1 static void call_my_srcu(struct rcu_head *head,
- 2        void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head))
- 3 {
- 4   call_srcu(&my_srcu, head, func);
- 5 }
- 6
- 7 synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_bh, call_rcu_sched, call_my_srcu);
-
    -
    - -

    -If you needed to wait on multiple different flavors of SRCU -(but why???), you would need to create a wrapper function resembling -call_my_srcu() for each SRCU flavor. - -

    @@QQ@@ -But what if I need to wait for multiple RCU flavors, but I also need -the grace periods to be expedited? -

    @@QQA@@ -If you are using expedited grace periods, there should be less penalty -for waiting on them in succession. -But if that is nevertheless a problem, you can use workqueues or multiple -kthreads to wait on the various expedited grace periods concurrently. -

    @@QQE@@ - -

    -Again, it is usually better to adjust the RCU read-side critical sections -to use a single flavor of RCU, but when this is not feasible, you can use -synchronize_rcu_mult(). - -

    Possible Future Changes

    - -

    -One of the tricks that RCU uses to attain update-side scalability is -to increase grace-period latency with increasing numbers of CPUs. -If this becomes a serious problem, it will be necessary to rework the -grace-period state machine so as to avoid the need for the additional -latency. - -

    -Expedited grace periods scan the CPUs, so their latency and overhead -increases with increasing numbers of CPUs. -If this becomes a serious problem on large systems, it will be necessary -to do some redesign to avoid this scalability problem. - -

    -RCU disables CPU hotplug in a few places, perhaps most notably in the -expedited grace-period and rcu_barrier() operations. -If there is a strong reason to use expedited grace periods in CPU-hotplug -notifiers, it will be necessary to avoid disabling CPU hotplug. -This would introduce some complexity, so there had better be a very -good reason. - -

    -The tradeoff between grace-period latency on the one hand and interruptions -of other CPUs on the other hand may need to be re-examined. -The desire is of course for zero grace-period latency as well as zero -interprocessor interrupts undertaken during an expedited grace period -operation. -While this ideal is unlikely to be achievable, it is quite possible that -further improvements can be made. - -

    -The multiprocessor implementations of RCU use a combining tree that -groups CPUs so as to reduce lock contention and increase cache locality. -However, this combining tree does not spread its memory across NUMA -nodes nor does it align the CPU groups with hardware features such -as sockets or cores. -Such spreading and alignment is currently believed to be unnecessary -because the hotpath read-side primitives do not access the combining -tree, nor does call_rcu() in the common case. -If you believe that your architecture needs such spreading and alignment, -then your architecture should also benefit from the -rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf boot parameter, which can be set -to the number of CPUs in a socket, NUMA node, or whatever. -If the number of CPUs is too large, use a fraction of the number of -CPUs. -If the number of CPUs is a large prime number, well, that certainly -is an “interesting” architectural choice! -More flexible arrangements might be considered, but only if -rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf has proven inadequate, and only -if the inadequacy has been demonstrated by a carefully run and -realistic system-level workload. - -

    -Please note that arrangements that require RCU to remap CPU numbers will -require extremely good demonstration of need and full exploration of -alternatives. - -

    -There is an embarrassingly large number of flavors of RCU, and this -number has been increasing over time. -Perhaps it will be possible to combine some at some future date. - -

    -RCU's various kthreads are reasonably recent additions. -It is quite likely that adjustments will be required to more gracefully -handle extreme loads. -It might also be necessary to be able to relate CPU utilization by -RCU's kthreads and softirq handlers to the code that instigated this -CPU utilization. -For example, RCU callback overhead might be charged back to the -originating call_rcu() instance, though probably not -in production kernels. - -

    Summary

    - -

    -This document has presented more than two decade's worth of RCU -requirements. -Given that the requirements keep changing, this will not be the last -word on this subject, but at least it serves to get an important -subset of the requirements set forth. - -

    Acknowledgments

    - -I am grateful to Steven Rostedt, Lai Jiangshan, Ingo Molnar, -Oleg Nesterov, Borislav Petkov, Peter Zijlstra, Boqun Feng, and -Andy Lutomirski for their help in rendering -this article human readable, and to Michelle Rankin for her support -of this effort. -Other contributions are acknowledged in the Linux kernel's git archive. -The cartoon is copyright (c) 2013 by Melissa Broussard, -and is provided -under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 -United States license. - -

    @@QQAL@@ - - diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/htmlqqz.sh b/Documentation/RCU/Design/htmlqqz.sh deleted file mode 100755 index d354f069559b..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/htmlqqz.sh +++ /dev/null @@ -1,108 +0,0 @@ -#!/bin/sh -# -# Usage: sh htmlqqz.sh file -# -# Extracts and converts quick quizzes in a proto-HTML document file.htmlx. -# Commands, all of which must be on a line by themselves: -# -# "

    @@QQ@@": Start of a quick quiz. -# "

    @@QQA@@": Start of a quick-quiz answer. -# "

    @@QQE@@": End of a quick-quiz answer, and thus of the quick quiz. -# "

    @@QQAL@@": Place to put quick-quiz answer list. -# -# Places the result in file.html. -# -# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify -# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by -# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or -# (at your option) any later version. -# -# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, -# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of -# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the -# GNU General Public License for more details. -# -# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License -# along with this program; if not, you can access it online at -# http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html. -# -# Copyright (c) 2013 Paul E. McKenney, IBM Corporation. - -fn=$1 -if test ! -r $fn.htmlx -then - echo "Error: $fn.htmlx unreadable." - exit 1 -fi - -echo "" > $fn.html -echo "" >> $fn.html -awk < $fn.htmlx >> $fn.html ' - -state == "" && $1 != "

    @@QQ@@" && $1 != "

    @@QQAL@@" { - print $0; - if ($0 ~ /^

    @@QQ/) - print "Bad Quick Quiz command: " NR " (expected

    @@QQ@@ or

    @@QQAL@@)." > "/dev/stderr" - next; -} - -state == "" && $1 == "

    @@QQ@@" { - qqn++; - qqlineno = NR; - haveqq = 1; - state = "qq"; - print "

    Quick Quiz " qqn ":" - next; -} - -state == "qq" && $1 != "

    @@QQA@@" { - qq[qqn] = qq[qqn] $0 "\n"; - print $0 - if ($0 ~ /^

    @@QQ/) - print "Bad Quick Quiz command: " NR ". (expected

    @@QQA@@)" > "/dev/stderr" - next; -} - -state == "qq" && $1 == "

    @@QQA@@" { - state = "qqa"; - print "
    Answer" - next; -} - -state == "qqa" && $1 != "

    @@QQE@@" { - qqa[qqn] = qqa[qqn] $0 "\n"; - if ($0 ~ /^

    @@QQ/) - print "Bad Quick Quiz command: " NR " (expected

    @@QQE@@)." > "/dev/stderr" - next; -} - -state == "qqa" && $1 == "

    @@QQE@@" { - state = ""; - next; -} - -state == "" && $1 == "

    @@QQAL@@" { - haveqq = ""; - print "

    " - print "Answers to Quick Quizzes

    " - print ""; - for (i = 1; i <= qqn; i++) { - print "" - print "

    Quick Quiz " i ":" - print qq[i]; - print ""; - print "

    Answer:" - print qqa[i]; - print ""; - print "

    Back to Quick Quiz " i "." - print ""; - } - next; -} - -END { - if (state != "") - print "Unterminated Quick Quiz: " qqlineno "." > "/dev/stderr" - else if (haveqq) - print "Missing \"

    @@QQAL@@\", no Quick Quiz." > "/dev/stderr" -}' From 5413e24c943da33306047fc091fa34fa4f261b3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:40:28 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 09/56] documentation: Sharpen up the no-readers quick quiz Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index acdad96f78e9..85cf2238fd08 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -1002,18 +1002,21 @@ obligation to wait for these new readers.   Quick Quiz: - Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed. - Would the updater be able to rely on this? + Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all + readers had completed instead of waiting only on + pre-existing readers. + For how long would the updater be able to rely on there + being no readers? Answer: - No. + For no time at all. Even if synchronize_rcu() were to wait until all readers had completed, a new reader might start immediately after synchronize_rcu() completed. Therefore, the code following - synchronize_rcu() cannot rely on there being no readers - in any case. + synchronize_rcu() can never rely on there being + no readers.   From 0c7d10e4b998b2f751cebf98435f1ec2dd312c87 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:00:08 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 10/56] documentation: Emphasize the call_rcu() is illegal from idle Although call_rcu()'s fastpath works just fine on an idle CPU, some branches of the slowpath invoke the scheduler, which uses RCU. Therefore, this commit emphasizes the fact that call_rcu() must not be invoked from an idle CPU. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index 85cf2238fd08..e7e24b3e86e2 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ situations where neither synchronize_rcu() nor including within preempt-disable code, local_bh_disable() code, interrupt-disable code, and interrupt handlers. However, even call_rcu() is illegal within NMI handlers -and from offline CPUs. +and from idle and offline CPUs. The callback function (remove_gp_cb() in this case) will be executed within softirq (software interrupt) environment within the Linux kernel, From 28728dd310d48834cd486dac3cac9ae96b9deb96 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:33:37 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 11/56] rcu: Make expedited RCU-sched grace period immediately detect idle Currently, sync_sched_exp_handler() will force a reschedule unless this CPU has already checked in or unless a reschedule has already been called for. This is clearly wasteful if sync_sched_exp_handler() interrupted an idle CPU, so this commit immediately reports the quiescent state in that case. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 531a328076bd..5f4336fadc28 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3649,6 +3649,11 @@ static void sync_sched_exp_handler(void *data) if (!(READ_ONCE(rnp->expmask) & rdp->grpmask) || __this_cpu_read(rcu_sched_data.cpu_no_qs.b.exp)) return; + if (rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle()) { + rcu_report_exp_rdp(&rcu_sched_state, + this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_sched_data), true); + return; + } __this_cpu_write(rcu_sched_data.cpu_no_qs.b.exp, true); resched_cpu(smp_processor_id()); } From 251c617c75f48e03523c43c4ce1dff44bc3ae2bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:52:35 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 12/56] rcu: Make expedited RCU-preempt stall warnings count accurately Currently, synchronize_sched_expedited_wait() simply sets the ndetected variable to the rcu_print_task_exp_stall() return value. This means that if the last rcu_node structure has no stalled tasks, record of any stalled tasks in previous rcu_node structures is lost, which can in turn result in failure to dump out the blocking rcu_node structures. Or could, had the test been correct. This commit therefore adds the return value of rcu_print_task_exp_stall() to ndetected and corrects the later test for ndetected. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 5f4336fadc28..687d8a5f35c7 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3778,7 +3778,7 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp) rsp->name); ndetected = 0; rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rsp, rnp) { - ndetected = rcu_print_task_exp_stall(rnp); + ndetected += rcu_print_task_exp_stall(rnp); mask = 1; for (cpu = rnp->grplo; cpu <= rnp->grphi; cpu++, mask <<= 1) { struct rcu_data *rdp; @@ -3797,7 +3797,7 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp) pr_cont(" } %lu jiffies s: %lu root: %#lx/%c\n", jiffies - jiffies_start, rsp->expedited_sequence, rnp_root->expmask, ".T"[!!rnp_root->exp_tasks]); - if (!ndetected) { + if (ndetected) { pr_err("blocking rcu_node structures:"); rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) { if (rnp == rnp_root) From a1e1224849d9610b50fd1dd7d6f44308a59e46af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:57:54 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 13/56] rcu: Make cond_resched_rcu_qs() supply RCU-sched expedited QS Although cond_resched_rcu_qs() supplies quiescent states to all flavors of normal RCU grace periods, it does nothing for expedited RCU-sched grace periods. This commit therefore adds a check for a need for a quiescent state from the current CPU by an expedited RCU-sched grace period, and invokes rcu_sched_qs() to supply that quiescent state if so. Note that the check is racy in that we might be migrated to some other CPU just after checking the per-CPU variable. This is OK because the act of migration will do a context switch, which will supply the needed quiescent state. The only downside is that we might do an unnecessary call to rcu_sched_qs(), but the probability is low and the overhead is small. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 687d8a5f35c7..178575c01d09 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -370,6 +370,21 @@ void rcu_all_qs(void) rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle(); local_irq_restore(flags); } + if (unlikely(raw_cpu_read(rcu_sched_data.cpu_no_qs.b.exp))) { + /* + * Yes, we just checked a per-CPU variable with preemption + * enabled, so we might be migrated to some other CPU at + * this point. That is OK because in that case, the + * migration will supply the needed quiescent state. + * We might end up needlessly disabling preemption and + * invoking rcu_sched_qs() on the destination CPU, but + * the probability and cost are both quite low, so this + * should not be a problem in practice. + */ + preempt_disable(); + rcu_sched_qs(); + preempt_enable(); + } this_cpu_inc(rcu_qs_ctr); barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking up. */ } From 26ece8ef6eca97f19eb5ad5186b8c1a29ab25d76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:48:37 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 14/56] rcu: Fix synchronize_rcu_expedited() header comment This commit brings the synchronize_rcu_expedited() function's header comment into line with the new implementation. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 20 +++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index efdf7b61ce12..a2ac2628ef8e 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -722,13 +722,19 @@ static void sync_rcu_exp_handler(void *info) * synchronize_rcu_expedited - Brute-force RCU grace period * * Wait for an RCU-preempt grace period, but expedite it. The basic - * idea is to invoke synchronize_sched_expedited() to push all the tasks to - * the ->blkd_tasks lists and wait for this list to drain. This consumes - * significant time on all CPUs and is unfriendly to real-time workloads, - * so is thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code. - * In fact, if you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop, - * please restructure your code to batch your updates, and then Use a - * single synchronize_rcu() instead. + * idea is to IPI all non-idle non-nohz online CPUs. The IPI handler + * checks whether the CPU is in an RCU-preempt critical section, and + * if so, it sets a flag that causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock() + * to report the quiescent state. On the other hand, if the CPU is + * not in an RCU read-side critical section, the IPI handler reports + * the quiescent state immediately. + * + * Although this is a greate improvement over previous expedited + * implementations, it is still unfriendly to real-time workloads, so is + * thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code. In fact, if + * you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop, please restructure + * your code to batch your updates, and then Use a single synchronize_rcu() + * instead. */ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) { From e087816db9423fdc49302d3cd7ec01e487477a71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:25:09 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 15/56] rcu: Add event tracing definitions for expedited grace periods Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- include/trace/events/rcu.h | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/trace/events/rcu.h b/include/trace/events/rcu.h index ef72c4aada56..aacc172eba7e 100644 --- a/include/trace/events/rcu.h +++ b/include/trace/events/rcu.h @@ -171,6 +171,76 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_grace_period_init, __entry->grplo, __entry->grphi, __entry->qsmask) ); +/* + * Tracepoint for expedited grace-period events. Takes a string identifying + * the RCU flavor, the expedited grace-period sequence number, and a string + * identifying the grace-period-related event as follows: + * + * "snap": Captured snapshot of expedited grace period sequence number. + * "start": Started a real expedited grace period. + * "end": Ended a real expedited grace period. + * "done": Someone else did the expedited grace period for us. + */ +TRACE_EVENT(rcu_exp_grace_period, + + TP_PROTO(const char *rcuname, unsigned long gpseq, const char *gpevent), + + TP_ARGS(rcuname, gpseq, gpevent), + + TP_STRUCT__entry( + __field(const char *, rcuname) + __field(unsigned long, gpseq) + __field(const char *, gpevent) + ), + + TP_fast_assign( + __entry->rcuname = rcuname; + __entry->gpseq = gpseq; + __entry->gpevent = gpevent; + ), + + TP_printk("%s %lu %s", + __entry->rcuname, __entry->gpseq, __entry->gpevent) +); + +/* + * Tracepoint for expedited grace-period funnel-locking events. Takes a + * string identifying the RCU flavor, an integer identifying the rcu_node + * combining-tree level, another pair of integers identifying the lowest- + * and highest-numbered CPU associated with the current rcu_node structure, + * and a string. identifying the grace-period-related event as follows: + * + * "acq": Acquired a level of funnel lock + * "rel": Released a level of funnel lock + */ +TRACE_EVENT(rcu_exp_funnel_lock, + + TP_PROTO(const char *rcuname, u8 level, int grplo, int grphi, + const char *gpevent), + + TP_ARGS(rcuname, level, grplo, grphi, gpevent), + + TP_STRUCT__entry( + __field(const char *, rcuname) + __field(u8, level) + __field(int, grplo) + __field(int, grphi) + __field(const char *, gpevent) + ), + + TP_fast_assign( + __entry->rcuname = rcuname; + __entry->level = level; + __entry->grplo = grplo; + __entry->grphi = grphi; + __entry->gpevent = gpevent; + ), + + TP_printk("%s %d %d %d %s", + __entry->rcuname, __entry->level, __entry->grplo, + __entry->grphi, __entry->gpevent) +); + /* * Tracepoint for RCU no-CBs CPU callback handoffs. This event is intended * to assist debugging of these handoffs. @@ -704,11 +774,15 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_barrier, #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */ #define trace_rcu_grace_period(rcuname, gpnum, gpevent) do { } while (0) -#define trace_rcu_grace_period_init(rcuname, gpnum, level, grplo, grphi, \ - qsmask) do { } while (0) #define trace_rcu_future_grace_period(rcuname, gpnum, completed, c, \ level, grplo, grphi, event) \ do { } while (0) +#define trace_rcu_grace_period_init(rcuname, gpnum, level, grplo, grphi, \ + qsmask) do { } while (0) +#define trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcuname, gqseq, gpevent) \ + do { } while (0) +#define trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rcuname, level, grplo, grphi, gpevent) \ + do { } while (0) #define trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcuname, cpu, reason) do { } while (0) #define trace_rcu_preempt_task(rcuname, pid, gpnum) do { } while (0) #define trace_rcu_unlock_preempted_task(rcuname, gpnum, pid) do { } while (0) From bea2de44ae647698dc848a671fdee6e53c192423 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:30:06 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 16/56] rcu: Add funnel-locking tracing for expedited grace periods Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 178575c01d09..79e9206a7b11 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3584,10 +3584,18 @@ static bool sync_exp_work_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, atomic_long_t *stat, unsigned long s) { if (rcu_exp_gp_seq_done(rsp, s)) { - if (rnp) + if (rnp) { mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex); - else if (rdp) + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, + rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, + TPS("rel")); + } else if (rdp) { mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, + rdp->mynode->level + 1, + rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, + TPS("rel")); + } /* Ensure test happens before caller kfree(). */ smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* ^^^ */ atomic_long_inc(stat); @@ -3619,6 +3627,9 @@ static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp0, NULL, &rdp->expedited_workdone0, s)) return NULL; + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp0->level, + rnp0->grplo, rnp0->grphi, + TPS("acq")); return rnp0; } } @@ -3634,16 +3645,28 @@ static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, NULL, NULL, &rdp->expedited_workdone1, s)) return NULL; mutex_lock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rdp->mynode->level + 1, + rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, TPS("acq")); rnp0 = rdp->mynode; for (; rnp0 != NULL; rnp0 = rnp0->parent) { if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, &rdp->expedited_workdone2, s)) return NULL; mutex_lock(&rnp0->exp_funnel_mutex); - if (rnp1) + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp0->level, + rnp0->grplo, rnp0->grphi, TPS("acq")); + if (rnp1) { mutex_unlock(&rnp1->exp_funnel_mutex); - else + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp1->level, + rnp1->grplo, rnp1->grphi, + TPS("rel")); + } else { mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, + rdp->mynode->level + 1, + rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, + TPS("rel")); + } rnp1 = rnp0; } if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index a2ac2628ef8e..cd2dae43ff48 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -767,6 +767,9 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) /* Clean up and exit. */ rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); mutex_unlock(&rnp_unlock->exp_funnel_mutex); + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp_unlock->level, + rnp_unlock->grplo, rnp_unlock->grphi, + TPS("rel")); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_expedited); From 4f41530245c7fd4837152e264d120d05ae940eb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:49:49 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 17/56] rcu: Add expedited-grace-period event tracing Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 79e9206a7b11..524026fd9dd7 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3584,17 +3584,18 @@ static bool sync_exp_work_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, atomic_long_t *stat, unsigned long s) { if (rcu_exp_gp_seq_done(rsp, s)) { + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("done")); if (rnp) { - mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex); trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, TPS("rel")); + mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex); } else if (rdp) { - mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rdp->mynode->level + 1, rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, TPS("rel")); + mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); } /* Ensure test happens before caller kfree(). */ smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* ^^^ */ @@ -3624,12 +3625,12 @@ static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) rnp0 = rcu_get_root(rsp); if (!mutex_is_locked(&rnp0->exp_funnel_mutex)) { if (mutex_trylock(&rnp0->exp_funnel_mutex)) { - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp0, NULL, - &rdp->expedited_workdone0, s)) - return NULL; trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp0->level, rnp0->grplo, rnp0->grphi, TPS("acq")); + if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp0, NULL, + &rdp->expedited_workdone0, s)) + return NULL; return rnp0; } } @@ -3656,16 +3657,16 @@ static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp0->level, rnp0->grplo, rnp0->grphi, TPS("acq")); if (rnp1) { - mutex_unlock(&rnp1->exp_funnel_mutex); trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp1->level, rnp1->grplo, rnp1->grphi, TPS("rel")); + mutex_unlock(&rnp1->exp_funnel_mutex); } else { - mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rdp->mynode->level + 1, rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, TPS("rel")); + mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); } rnp1 = rnp0; } @@ -3895,16 +3896,21 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) /* Take a snapshot of the sequence number. */ s = rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("snap")); rnp = exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s); if (rnp == NULL) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("start")); sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_sched_exp_handler); synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, + rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, TPS("rel")); mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_sched_expedited); diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index cd2dae43ff48..36e94aed38a7 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -750,12 +750,14 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) } s = rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("snap")); rnp_unlock = exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s); if (rnp_unlock == NULL) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("start")); /* Initialize the rcu_node tree in preparation for the wait. */ sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_rcu_exp_handler); @@ -766,6 +768,7 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) /* Clean up and exit. */ rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); mutex_unlock(&rnp_unlock->exp_funnel_mutex); trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp_unlock->level, rnp_unlock->grplo, rnp_unlock->grphi, From e2fd9d35847d1936398d44c4df68dceb3d7f64e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:23:19 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 18/56] rcu: Remove expedited GP funnel-lock bypass Commit #cdacbe1f91264 ("rcu: Add fastpath bypassing funnel locking") turns out to be a pessimization at high load because it forces a tree full of tasks to wait for an expedited grace period that they probably do not need. This commit therefore removes this optimization. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/RCU/trace.txt | 10 +++++----- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 19 ------------------- kernel/rcu/tree.h | 1 - kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c | 7 +++---- 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt b/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt index ec6998b1b6d0..00a3a38b375a 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/trace.txt @@ -237,17 +237,17 @@ o "ktl" is the low-order 16 bits (in hexadecimal) of the count of The output of "cat rcu/rcu_preempt/rcuexp" looks as follows: -s=21872 wd0=0 wd1=0 wd2=0 wd3=5 n=0 enq=0 sc=21872 +s=21872 wd1=0 wd2=0 wd3=5 n=0 enq=0 sc=21872 These fields are as follows: o "s" is the sequence number, with an odd number indicating that an expedited grace period is in progress. -o "wd0", "wd1", "wd2", and "wd3" are the number of times that an - attempt to start an expedited grace period found that someone - else had completed an expedited grace period that satisfies the - attempted request. "Our work is done." +o "wd1", "wd2", and "wd3" are the number of times that an attempt + to start an expedited grace period found that someone else had + completed an expedited grace period that satisfies the attempted + request. "Our work is done." o "n" is number of times that a concurrent CPU-hotplug operation forced a fallback to a normal grace period. diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 524026fd9dd7..62e73e0a929f 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3616,25 +3616,6 @@ static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) struct rcu_node *rnp0; struct rcu_node *rnp1 = NULL; - /* - * First try directly acquiring the root lock in order to reduce - * latency in the common case where expedited grace periods are - * rare. We check mutex_is_locked() to avoid pathological levels of - * memory contention on ->exp_funnel_mutex in the heavy-load case. - */ - rnp0 = rcu_get_root(rsp); - if (!mutex_is_locked(&rnp0->exp_funnel_mutex)) { - if (mutex_trylock(&rnp0->exp_funnel_mutex)) { - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp0->level, - rnp0->grplo, rnp0->grphi, - TPS("acq")); - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp0, NULL, - &rdp->expedited_workdone0, s)) - return NULL; - return rnp0; - } - } - /* * Each pass through the following loop works its way * up the rcu_node tree, returning if others have done the diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h index df668c0f9e64..ac9a7b0c36ae 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h @@ -388,7 +388,6 @@ struct rcu_data { struct rcu_head oom_head; #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ */ struct mutex exp_funnel_mutex; - atomic_long_t expedited_workdone0; /* # done by others #0. */ atomic_long_t expedited_workdone1; /* # done by others #1. */ atomic_long_t expedited_workdone2; /* # done by others #2. */ atomic_long_t expedited_workdone3; /* # done by others #3. */ diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c b/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c index 1088e64f01ad..d149c412a4e5 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c @@ -185,17 +185,16 @@ static int show_rcuexp(struct seq_file *m, void *v) int cpu; struct rcu_state *rsp = (struct rcu_state *)m->private; struct rcu_data *rdp; - unsigned long s0 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0; + unsigned long s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0; for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu); - s0 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->expedited_workdone0); s1 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->expedited_workdone1); s2 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->expedited_workdone2); s3 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->expedited_workdone3); } - seq_printf(m, "s=%lu wd0=%lu wd1=%lu wd2=%lu wd3=%lu n=%lu enq=%d sc=%lu\n", - rsp->expedited_sequence, s0, s1, s2, s3, + seq_printf(m, "s=%lu wd1=%lu wd2=%lu wd3=%lu n=%lu enq=%d sc=%lu\n", + rsp->expedited_sequence, s1, s2, s3, atomic_long_read(&rsp->expedited_normal), atomic_read(&rsp->expedited_need_qs), rsp->expedited_sequence / 2); From ec3833ed02ae6ef2a933ece9de7cbab0c64c699e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:29:29 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 19/56] rcu: Force boolean subscript for expedited stall warnings The cpu_online() function can return values other than 0 and 1, which can result in subscript overflow when applied to a two-element array. This commit allows for this behavior by using "!!" on the return value from cpu_online() when used as a subscript. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 62e73e0a929f..64c2e3288551 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3808,7 +3808,7 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp) ndetected++; rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu); pr_cont(" %d-%c%c%c", cpu, - "O."[cpu_online(cpu)], + "O."[!!cpu_online(cpu)], "o."[!!(rdp->grpmask & rnp->expmaskinit)], "N."[!!(rdp->grpmask & rnp->expmaskinitnext)]); } From d40a4f09a448382961fa9b1a2f7d4f34813f0273 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:43:44 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 20/56] rcu: Shorten expedited_workdone* to exp_workdone* Just a name change to save a few lines and a bit of typing. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 +++----- kernel/rcu/tree.h | 6 +++--- kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c | 6 +++--- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 64c2e3288551..89f028767765 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3624,15 +3624,14 @@ static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) * can be inexact, as it is just promoting locality and is not * strictly needed for correctness. */ - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, NULL, NULL, &rdp->expedited_workdone1, s)) + if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, NULL, NULL, &rdp->exp_workdone1, s)) return NULL; mutex_lock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rdp->mynode->level + 1, rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, TPS("acq")); rnp0 = rdp->mynode; for (; rnp0 != NULL; rnp0 = rnp0->parent) { - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, - &rdp->expedited_workdone2, s)) + if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, &rdp->exp_workdone2, s)) return NULL; mutex_lock(&rnp0->exp_funnel_mutex); trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp0->level, @@ -3651,8 +3650,7 @@ static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) } rnp1 = rnp0; } - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, - &rdp->expedited_workdone3, s)) + if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, &rdp->exp_workdone3, s)) return NULL; return rnp1; } diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h index ac9a7b0c36ae..6a8f09446924 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h @@ -388,9 +388,9 @@ struct rcu_data { struct rcu_head oom_head; #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ */ struct mutex exp_funnel_mutex; - atomic_long_t expedited_workdone1; /* # done by others #1. */ - atomic_long_t expedited_workdone2; /* # done by others #2. */ - atomic_long_t expedited_workdone3; /* # done by others #3. */ + atomic_long_t exp_workdone1; /* # done by others #1. */ + atomic_long_t exp_workdone2; /* # done by others #2. */ + atomic_long_t exp_workdone3; /* # done by others #3. */ /* 7) Callback offloading. */ #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c b/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c index d149c412a4e5..86782f9a4604 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c @@ -189,9 +189,9 @@ static int show_rcuexp(struct seq_file *m, void *v) for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu); - s1 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->expedited_workdone1); - s2 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->expedited_workdone2); - s3 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->expedited_workdone3); + s1 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->exp_workdone1); + s2 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->exp_workdone2); + s3 += atomic_long_read(&rdp->exp_workdone3); } seq_printf(m, "s=%lu wd1=%lu wd2=%lu wd3=%lu n=%lu enq=%d sc=%lu\n", rsp->expedited_sequence, s1, s2, s3, From f6a12f34a448cc8a624070fd365c29c890138a48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:57:35 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 21/56] rcu: Enforce expedited-GP fairness via funnel wait queue The current mutex-based funnel-locking approach used by expedited grace periods is subject to severe unfairness. The problem arises when a few tasks, making a path from leaves to root, all wake up before other tasks do. A new task can then follow this path all the way to the root, which needlessly delays tasks whose grace period is done, but who do not happen to acquire the lock quickly enough. This commit avoids this problem by maintaining per-rcu_node wait queues, along with a per-rcu_node counter that tracks the latest grace period sought by an earlier task to visit this node. If that grace period would satisfy the current task, instead of proceeding up the tree, it waits on the current rcu_node structure using a pair of wait queues provided for that purpose. This decouples awakening of old tasks from the arrival of new tasks. If the wakeups prove to be a bottleneck, additional kthreads can be brought to bear for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- include/trace/events/rcu.h | 5 +- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 157 +++++++++++++++++++------------------ kernel/rcu/tree.h | 10 +-- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 16 ++-- 4 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/trace/events/rcu.h b/include/trace/events/rcu.h index aacc172eba7e..d3e756539d44 100644 --- a/include/trace/events/rcu.h +++ b/include/trace/events/rcu.h @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_grace_period_init, * "snap": Captured snapshot of expedited grace period sequence number. * "start": Started a real expedited grace period. * "end": Ended a real expedited grace period. + * "endwake": Woke piggybackers up. * "done": Someone else did the expedited grace period for us. */ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_exp_grace_period, @@ -210,8 +211,8 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_exp_grace_period, * and highest-numbered CPU associated with the current rcu_node structure, * and a string. identifying the grace-period-related event as follows: * - * "acq": Acquired a level of funnel lock - * "rel": Released a level of funnel lock + * "nxtlvl": Advance to next level of rcu_node funnel + * "wait": Wait for someone else to do expedited GP */ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_exp_funnel_lock, diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 89f028767765..bd2658edce00 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ struct rcu_state sname##_state = { \ .barrier_mutex = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(sname##_state.barrier_mutex), \ .name = RCU_STATE_NAME(sname), \ .abbr = sabbr, \ + .exp_mutex = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(sname##_state.exp_mutex), \ } RCU_STATE_INITIALIZER(rcu_sched, 's', call_rcu_sched); @@ -3484,7 +3485,7 @@ static void __maybe_unused sync_exp_reset_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp) * for the current expedited grace period. Works only for preemptible * RCU -- other RCU implementation use other means. * - * Caller must hold the root rcu_node's exp_funnel_mutex. + * Caller must hold the rcu_state's exp_mutex. */ static int sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(struct rcu_node *rnp) { @@ -3500,8 +3501,8 @@ static int sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(struct rcu_node *rnp) * recursively up the tree. (Calm down, calm down, we do the recursion * iteratively!) * - * Caller must hold the root rcu_node's exp_funnel_mutex and the - * specified rcu_node structure's ->lock. + * Caller must hold the rcu_state's exp_mutex and the specified rcu_node + * structure's ->lock. */ static void __rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, bool wake, unsigned long flags) @@ -3538,7 +3539,7 @@ static void __rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, * Report expedited quiescent state for specified node. This is a * lock-acquisition wrapper function for __rcu_report_exp_rnp(). * - * Caller must hold the root rcu_node's exp_funnel_mutex. + * Caller must hold the rcu_state's exp_mutex. */ static void __maybe_unused rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, bool wake) @@ -3551,8 +3552,8 @@ static void __maybe_unused rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, /* * Report expedited quiescent state for multiple CPUs, all covered by the - * specified leaf rcu_node structure. Caller must hold the root - * rcu_node's exp_funnel_mutex. + * specified leaf rcu_node structure. Caller must hold the rcu_state's + * exp_mutex. */ static void rcu_report_exp_cpu_mult(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long mask, bool wake) @@ -3570,7 +3571,6 @@ static void rcu_report_exp_cpu_mult(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, /* * Report expedited quiescent state for specified rcu_data (CPU). - * Caller must hold the root rcu_node's exp_funnel_mutex. */ static void rcu_report_exp_rdp(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp, bool wake) @@ -3579,24 +3579,11 @@ static void rcu_report_exp_rdp(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp, } /* Common code for synchronize_{rcu,sched}_expedited() work-done checking. */ -static bool sync_exp_work_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, - struct rcu_data *rdp, - atomic_long_t *stat, unsigned long s) +static bool sync_exp_work_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, atomic_long_t *stat, + unsigned long s) { if (rcu_exp_gp_seq_done(rsp, s)) { trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("done")); - if (rnp) { - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, - rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, - TPS("rel")); - mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex); - } else if (rdp) { - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, - rdp->mynode->level + 1, - rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, - TPS("rel")); - mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); - } /* Ensure test happens before caller kfree(). */ smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* ^^^ */ atomic_long_inc(stat); @@ -3606,53 +3593,53 @@ static bool sync_exp_work_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, } /* - * Funnel-lock acquisition for expedited grace periods. Returns a - * pointer to the root rcu_node structure, or NULL if some other - * task did the expedited grace period for us. + * Funnel-lock acquisition for expedited grace periods. Returns true + * if some other task completed an expedited grace period that this task + * can piggy-back on, and with no mutex held. Otherwise, returns false + * with the mutex held, indicating that the caller must actually do the + * expedited grace period. */ -static struct rcu_node *exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) +static bool exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) { struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, raw_smp_processor_id()); - struct rcu_node *rnp0; - struct rcu_node *rnp1 = NULL; + struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode; /* - * Each pass through the following loop works its way - * up the rcu_node tree, returning if others have done the - * work or otherwise falls through holding the root rnp's - * ->exp_funnel_mutex. The mapping from CPU to rcu_node structure - * can be inexact, as it is just promoting locality and is not - * strictly needed for correctness. + * Each pass through the following loop works its way up + * the rcu_node tree, returning if others have done the work or + * otherwise falls through to acquire rsp->exp_mutex. The mapping + * from CPU to rcu_node structure can be inexact, as it is just + * promoting locality and is not strictly needed for correctness. */ - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, NULL, NULL, &rdp->exp_workdone1, s)) - return NULL; - mutex_lock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rdp->mynode->level + 1, - rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, TPS("acq")); - rnp0 = rdp->mynode; - for (; rnp0 != NULL; rnp0 = rnp0->parent) { - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, &rdp->exp_workdone2, s)) - return NULL; - mutex_lock(&rnp0->exp_funnel_mutex); - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp0->level, - rnp0->grplo, rnp0->grphi, TPS("acq")); - if (rnp1) { - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp1->level, - rnp1->grplo, rnp1->grphi, - TPS("rel")); - mutex_unlock(&rnp1->exp_funnel_mutex); - } else { - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, - rdp->mynode->level + 1, - rdp->cpu, rdp->cpu, - TPS("rel")); - mutex_unlock(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); + for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { + if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, &rdp->exp_workdone1, s)) + return true; + + /* Work not done, either wait here or go up. */ + spin_lock(&rnp->exp_lock); + if (ULONG_CMP_GE(rnp->exp_seq_rq, s)) { + + /* Someone else doing GP, so wait for them. */ + spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock); + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, + rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, + TPS("wait")); + wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[(s >> 1) & 0x1], + sync_exp_work_done(rsp, + &rdp->exp_workdone2, s)); + return true; } - rnp1 = rnp0; + rnp->exp_seq_rq = s; /* Followers can wait on us. */ + spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock); + trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, rnp->grplo, + rnp->grphi, TPS("nxtlvl")); } - if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, rnp1, rdp, &rdp->exp_workdone3, s)) - return NULL; - return rnp1; + mutex_lock(&rsp->exp_mutex); + if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, &rdp->exp_workdone3, s)) { + mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); + return true; + } + return false; } /* Invoked on each online non-idle CPU for expedited quiescent state. */ @@ -3841,6 +3828,27 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp) } } +/* + * Wake up everyone who piggybacked on the just-completed expedited + * grace period. Also update all the ->exp_seq_rq counters as needed + * in order to avoid counter-wrap problems. + */ +static void rcu_exp_wake(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) +{ + struct rcu_node *rnp; + + rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) { + if (ULONG_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_seq_rq), s)) { + spin_lock(&rnp->exp_lock); + /* Recheck, avoid hang in case someone just arrived. */ + if (ULONG_CMP_LT(rnp->exp_seq_rq, s)) + rnp->exp_seq_rq = s; + spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock); + } + wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[(rsp->expedited_sequence >> 1) & 0x1]); + } +} + /** * synchronize_sched_expedited - Brute-force RCU-sched grace period * @@ -3860,7 +3868,6 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp) void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) { unsigned long s; - struct rcu_node *rnp; struct rcu_state *rsp = &rcu_sched_state; /* If only one CPU, this is automatically a grace period. */ @@ -3877,20 +3884,23 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) s = rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(rsp); trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("snap")); - rnp = exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s); - if (rnp == NULL) + if (exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s)) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(rsp); trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("start")); - sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_sched_exp_handler); - synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); + /* Initialize the rcu_node tree in preparation for the wait. */ + sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_sched_exp_handler); + + /* Wait and clean up, including waking everyone. */ + synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, - rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, TPS("rel")); - mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex); + rcu_exp_wake(rsp, s); + + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("endwake")); + mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_sched_expedited); @@ -4190,7 +4200,6 @@ rcu_boot_init_percpu_data(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp) WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks->dynticks) != 1); rdp->cpu = cpu; rdp->rsp = rsp; - mutex_init(&rdp->exp_funnel_mutex); rcu_boot_init_nocb_percpu_data(rdp); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags); } @@ -4448,10 +4457,8 @@ static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp) { static const char * const buf[] = RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT; static const char * const fqs[] = RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT; - static const char * const exp[] = RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT; static struct lock_class_key rcu_node_class[RCU_NUM_LVLS]; static struct lock_class_key rcu_fqs_class[RCU_NUM_LVLS]; - static struct lock_class_key rcu_exp_class[RCU_NUM_LVLS]; static u8 fl_mask = 0x1; int levelcnt[RCU_NUM_LVLS]; /* # nodes in each level. */ @@ -4510,9 +4517,9 @@ static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp) rnp->level = i; INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rnp->blkd_tasks); rcu_init_one_nocb(rnp); - mutex_init(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex); - lockdep_set_class_and_name(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex, - &rcu_exp_class[i], exp[i]); + init_waitqueue_head(&rnp->exp_wq[0]); + init_waitqueue_head(&rnp->exp_wq[1]); + spin_lock_init(&rnp->exp_lock); } } diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h index 6a8f09446924..f9d4fbb1e014 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h @@ -70,7 +70,6 @@ # define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT { NUM_RCU_LVL_0 } # define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_0" } # define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_fqs_0" } -# define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_exp_0" } #elif NR_CPUS <= RCU_FANOUT_2 # define RCU_NUM_LVLS 2 # define NUM_RCU_LVL_0 1 @@ -79,7 +78,6 @@ # define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT { NUM_RCU_LVL_0, NUM_RCU_LVL_1 } # define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_0", "rcu_node_1" } # define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_fqs_0", "rcu_node_fqs_1" } -# define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_exp_0", "rcu_node_exp_1" } #elif NR_CPUS <= RCU_FANOUT_3 # define RCU_NUM_LVLS 3 # define NUM_RCU_LVL_0 1 @@ -89,7 +87,6 @@ # define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT { NUM_RCU_LVL_0, NUM_RCU_LVL_1, NUM_RCU_LVL_2 } # define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_0", "rcu_node_1", "rcu_node_2" } # define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_fqs_0", "rcu_node_fqs_1", "rcu_node_fqs_2" } -# define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_exp_0", "rcu_node_exp_1", "rcu_node_exp_2" } #elif NR_CPUS <= RCU_FANOUT_4 # define RCU_NUM_LVLS 4 # define NUM_RCU_LVL_0 1 @@ -100,7 +97,6 @@ # define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT { NUM_RCU_LVL_0, NUM_RCU_LVL_1, NUM_RCU_LVL_2, NUM_RCU_LVL_3 } # define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_0", "rcu_node_1", "rcu_node_2", "rcu_node_3" } # define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_fqs_0", "rcu_node_fqs_1", "rcu_node_fqs_2", "rcu_node_fqs_3" } -# define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT { "rcu_node_exp_0", "rcu_node_exp_1", "rcu_node_exp_2", "rcu_node_exp_3" } #else # error "CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT insufficient for NR_CPUS" #endif /* #if (NR_CPUS) <= RCU_FANOUT_1 */ @@ -252,7 +248,9 @@ struct rcu_node { /* Counts of upcoming no-CB GP requests. */ raw_spinlock_t fqslock ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp; - struct mutex exp_funnel_mutex ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp; + spinlock_t exp_lock ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp; + unsigned long exp_seq_rq; + wait_queue_head_t exp_wq[2]; } ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp; /* @@ -387,7 +385,6 @@ struct rcu_data { #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ struct rcu_head oom_head; #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ */ - struct mutex exp_funnel_mutex; atomic_long_t exp_workdone1; /* # done by others #1. */ atomic_long_t exp_workdone2; /* # done by others #2. */ atomic_long_t exp_workdone3; /* # done by others #3. */ @@ -504,6 +501,7 @@ struct rcu_state { /* _rcu_barrier(). */ /* End of fields guarded by barrier_mutex. */ + struct mutex exp_mutex; /* Serialize expedited GP. */ unsigned long expedited_sequence; /* Take a ticket. */ atomic_long_t expedited_normal; /* # fallbacks to normal. */ atomic_t expedited_need_qs; /* # CPUs left to check in. */ diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index 36e94aed38a7..c82c3640493f 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -738,8 +738,6 @@ static void sync_rcu_exp_handler(void *info) */ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) { - struct rcu_node *rnp; - struct rcu_node *rnp_unlock; struct rcu_state *rsp = rcu_state_p; unsigned long s; @@ -752,8 +750,7 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) s = rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(rsp); trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("snap")); - rnp_unlock = exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s); - if (rnp_unlock == NULL) + if (exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s)) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(rsp); @@ -763,16 +760,13 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_rcu_exp_handler); /* Wait for snapshotted ->blkd_tasks lists to drain. */ - rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); - - /* Clean up and exit. */ rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); - mutex_unlock(&rnp_unlock->exp_funnel_mutex); - trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp_unlock->level, - rnp_unlock->grplo, rnp_unlock->grphi, - TPS("rel")); + rcu_exp_wake(rsp, s); + + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("endwake")); + mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_expedited); From 356051e1de3cf65575da4ee92d1f5cee86677ee2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:22:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 22/56] rcu: Add exp_funnel_lock() fastpath This commit speeds up the low-contention case, especially for systems with large rcu_node trees, by attempting to directly acquire the ->exp_mutex. This fastpath checks the leaves and root first in order to avoid excessive memory contention on the mutex itself. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index bd2658edce00..892a140ae7b6 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3603,6 +3603,15 @@ static bool exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) { struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, raw_smp_processor_id()); struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode; + struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root(rsp); + + /* Low-contention fastpath. */ + if (ULONG_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_seq_rq), s) && + (rnp == rnp_root || + ULONG_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(rnp_root->exp_seq_rq), s)) && + !mutex_is_locked(&rsp->exp_mutex) && + mutex_trylock(&rsp->exp_mutex)) + goto fastpath; /* * Each pass through the following loop works its way up @@ -3635,6 +3644,7 @@ static bool exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) rnp->grphi, TPS("nxtlvl")); } mutex_lock(&rsp->exp_mutex); +fastpath: if (sync_exp_work_done(rsp, &rdp->exp_workdone3, s)) { mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); return true; From 4ea3e85b113ab37a2d55cfabf0d709ddec088bb3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:22:25 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 23/56] rcu: Consolidate expedited GP code into rcu_exp_wait_wake() Currently, synchronize_rcu_expedited() and rcu_sched_expedited() have significant duplicate code. This commit therefore consolidates some of this code into rcu_exp_wake(), which is now renamed to rcu_exp_wait_wake() in recognition of its added responsibilities. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 18 +++++++++--------- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 10 ++-------- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 892a140ae7b6..fd86eca9478e 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3839,14 +3839,18 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp) } /* - * Wake up everyone who piggybacked on the just-completed expedited + * Wait for the current expedited grace period to complete, and then + * wake up everyone who piggybacked on the just-completed expedited * grace period. Also update all the ->exp_seq_rq counters as needed * in order to avoid counter-wrap problems. */ -static void rcu_exp_wake(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) +static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) { struct rcu_node *rnp; + synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); + rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) { if (ULONG_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_seq_rq), s)) { spin_lock(&rnp->exp_lock); @@ -3857,6 +3861,8 @@ static void rcu_exp_wake(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) } wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[(rsp->expedited_sequence >> 1) & 0x1]); } + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("endwake")); + mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); } /** @@ -3904,13 +3910,7 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_sched_exp_handler); /* Wait and clean up, including waking everyone. */ - synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); - rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); - rcu_exp_wake(rsp, s); - - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("endwake")); - mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); + rcu_exp_wait_wake(rsp, s); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_sched_expedited); diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index c82c3640493f..b6d5dde6eab9 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -759,14 +759,8 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) /* Initialize the rcu_node tree in preparation for the wait. */ sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_rcu_exp_handler); - /* Wait for snapshotted ->blkd_tasks lists to drain. */ - synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); - rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); - rcu_exp_wake(rsp, s); - - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("endwake")); - mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); + /* Wait for ->blkd_tasks lists to drain, then wake everyone up. */ + rcu_exp_wait_wake(rsp, s); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_expedited); From 179e5dcd1e5bdfac1128431d131b31322aedd2bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:27:44 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 24/56] rcu: Consolidate expedited GP tracing into rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap() This commit moves some duplicate code from synchronize_rcu_expedited() and synchronize_sched_expedited() into rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(). This doesn't save lines of code, but does eliminate a "tell me twice" issue. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 +++++--- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 -- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index fd86eca9478e..5b1c8fd89af0 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3392,8 +3392,12 @@ static void rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(struct rcu_state *rsp) } static unsigned long rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(struct rcu_state *rsp) { + unsigned long s; + smp_mb(); /* Caller's modifications seen first by other CPUs. */ - return rcu_seq_snap(&rsp->expedited_sequence); + s = rcu_seq_snap(&rsp->expedited_sequence); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("snap")); + return s; } static bool rcu_exp_gp_seq_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) { @@ -3898,8 +3902,6 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) /* Take a snapshot of the sequence number. */ s = rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(rsp); - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("snap")); - if (exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s)) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index b6d5dde6eab9..529a44085a63 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -748,8 +748,6 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) } s = rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(rsp); - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("snap")); - if (exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s)) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ From aff12cdf86e6fa891d1c30c0fad112d138bd7b10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:32:24 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 25/56] rcu: Consolidate expedited GP code into exp_funnel_lock() This commit pulls the grace-period-start counter adjustment and tracing from synchronize_rcu_expedited() and synchronize_sched_expedited() into exp_funnel_lock(), thus eliminating some code duplication. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 5 ++--- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 --- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 5b1c8fd89af0..e8fff14e417b 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3653,6 +3653,8 @@ fastpath: mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); return true; } + rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(rsp); + trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("start")); return false; } @@ -3905,9 +3907,6 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) if (exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s)) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ - rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(rsp); - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("start")); - /* Initialize the rcu_node tree in preparation for the wait. */ sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_sched_exp_handler); diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index 529a44085a63..ff1cd4e1188d 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -751,9 +751,6 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void) if (exp_funnel_lock(rsp, s)) return; /* Someone else did our work for us. */ - rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(rsp); - trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("start")); - /* Initialize the rcu_node tree in preparation for the wait. */ sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(rsp, sync_rcu_exp_handler); From 3b5f668e715bc19610ad967ef97a7e8c55a186ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:47:55 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 26/56] rcu: Overlap wakeups with next expedited grace period The current expedited grace-period implementation makes subsequent grace periods wait on wakeups for the prior grace period. This does not fit the dictionary definition of "expedited", so this commit allows these two phases to overlap. Doing this requires four waitqueues rather than two because tasks can now be waiting on the previous, current, and next grace periods. The fourth waitqueue makes the bit masking work out nicely. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- kernel/rcu/tree.h | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index e8fff14e417b..1df100cb7a62 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ struct rcu_state sname##_state = { \ .name = RCU_STATE_NAME(sname), \ .abbr = sabbr, \ .exp_mutex = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(sname##_state.exp_mutex), \ + .exp_wake_mutex = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(sname##_state.exp_wake_mutex), \ } RCU_STATE_INITIALIZER(rcu_sched, 's', call_rcu_sched); @@ -3637,7 +3638,7 @@ static bool exp_funnel_lock(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rsp->name, rnp->level, rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, TPS("wait")); - wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[(s >> 1) & 0x1], + wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[(s >> 1) & 0x3], sync_exp_work_done(rsp, &rdp->exp_workdone2, s)); return true; @@ -3857,6 +3858,14 @@ static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(rsp); rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp); trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("end")); + + /* + * Switch over to wakeup mode, allowing the next GP, but -only- the + * next GP, to proceed. + */ + mutex_lock(&rsp->exp_wake_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); + rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) { if (ULONG_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_seq_rq), s)) { spin_lock(&rnp->exp_lock); @@ -3865,10 +3874,10 @@ static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s) rnp->exp_seq_rq = s; spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock); } - wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[(rsp->expedited_sequence >> 1) & 0x1]); + wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[(rsp->expedited_sequence >> 1) & 0x3]); } trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, s, TPS("endwake")); - mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_wake_mutex); } /** @@ -4530,6 +4539,8 @@ static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp) rcu_init_one_nocb(rnp); init_waitqueue_head(&rnp->exp_wq[0]); init_waitqueue_head(&rnp->exp_wq[1]); + init_waitqueue_head(&rnp->exp_wq[2]); + init_waitqueue_head(&rnp->exp_wq[3]); spin_lock_init(&rnp->exp_lock); } } diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h index f9d4fbb1e014..1194ab0da56a 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ struct rcu_node { spinlock_t exp_lock ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp; unsigned long exp_seq_rq; - wait_queue_head_t exp_wq[2]; + wait_queue_head_t exp_wq[4]; } ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp; /* @@ -502,6 +502,7 @@ struct rcu_state { /* End of fields guarded by barrier_mutex. */ struct mutex exp_mutex; /* Serialize expedited GP. */ + struct mutex exp_wake_mutex; /* Serialize wakeup. */ unsigned long expedited_sequence; /* Take a ticket. */ atomic_long_t expedited_normal; /* # fallbacks to normal. */ atomic_t expedited_need_qs; /* # CPUs left to check in. */ From 86057b80ae31d37fcbdb5f57d15aaf1148c69f96 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:48:36 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 27/56] rcu: Awaken grace-period kthread when stalled Recent kernels can fail to awaken the grace-period kthread for quiescent-state forcing. This commit is a crude hack that does a wakeup any time a stall is detected. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 531a328076bd..a327a253c178 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -1224,8 +1224,10 @@ static void rcu_check_gp_kthread_starvation(struct rcu_state *rsp) rsp->gp_flags, gp_state_getname(rsp->gp_state), rsp->gp_state, rsp->gp_kthread ? rsp->gp_kthread->state : ~0); - if (rsp->gp_kthread) + if (rsp->gp_kthread) { sched_show_task(rsp->gp_kthread); + wake_up_process(rsp->gp_kthread); + } } } From fcfd0a237bfcf0c314005007e9d76e55a25e2bad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 16:42:18 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 28/56] rcu: Make FQS schedule advance only if FQS happened Currently, the force-quiescent-state (FQS) code in rcu_gp_kthread() can advance the next FQS even if one was not executed last time. This can happen due timeout-duration uncertainty. This commit therefore avoids advancing the FQS schedule unless an FQS was just executed. In the corner case where an FQS was not executed, but is due now, the code does a one-jiffy wait. This change prepares for kthread kicking. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index a327a253c178..6116cfad18ff 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -2146,6 +2146,15 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg) TPS("fqsend")); cond_resched_rcu_qs(); WRITE_ONCE(rsp->gp_activity, jiffies); + ret = 0; /* Force full wait till next FQS. */ + j = jiffies_till_next_fqs; + if (j > HZ) { + j = HZ; + jiffies_till_next_fqs = HZ; + } else if (j < 1) { + j = 1; + jiffies_till_next_fqs = 1; + } } else { /* Deal with stray signal. */ cond_resched_rcu_qs(); @@ -2154,14 +2163,12 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg) trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, READ_ONCE(rsp->gpnum), TPS("fqswaitsig")); - } - j = jiffies_till_next_fqs; - if (j > HZ) { - j = HZ; - jiffies_till_next_fqs = HZ; - } else if (j < 1) { - j = 1; - jiffies_till_next_fqs = 1; + ret = 1; /* Keep old FQS timing. */ + j = jiffies; + if (time_after(jiffies, rsp->jiffies_force_qs)) + j = 1; + else + j = rsp->jiffies_force_qs - j; } } From 8c7c4829a81c1838f18c12ce5a3a5c29a08bf0a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 20:29:57 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 29/56] rcu: Awaken grace-period kthread if too long since FQS Recent kernels can fail to awaken the grace-period kthread for quiescent-state forcing. This commit is a crude hack that does a wakeup if a scheduling-clock interrupt sees that it has been too long since force-quiescent-state (FQS) processing. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- kernel/rcu/tree.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 6116cfad18ff..a739292be605 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -385,9 +385,11 @@ module_param(qlowmark, long, 0444); static ulong jiffies_till_first_fqs = ULONG_MAX; static ulong jiffies_till_next_fqs = ULONG_MAX; +static bool rcu_kick_kthreads; module_param(jiffies_till_first_fqs, ulong, 0644); module_param(jiffies_till_next_fqs, ulong, 0644); +module_param(rcu_kick_kthreads, bool, 0644); /* * How long the grace period must be before we start recruiting @@ -1251,6 +1253,24 @@ static void rcu_dump_cpu_stacks(struct rcu_state *rsp) } } +/* + * If too much time has passed in the current grace period, and if + * so configured, go kick the relevant kthreads. + */ +static void rcu_stall_kick_kthreads(struct rcu_state *rsp) +{ + unsigned long j; + + if (!rcu_kick_kthreads) + return; + j = READ_ONCE(rsp->jiffies_kick_kthreads); + if (time_after(jiffies, j) && rsp->gp_kthread) { + WARN_ONCE(1, "Kicking %s grace-period kthread\n", rsp->name); + wake_up_process(rsp->gp_kthread); + WRITE_ONCE(rsp->jiffies_kick_kthreads, j + HZ); + } +} + static void print_other_cpu_stall(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long gpnum) { int cpu; @@ -1262,6 +1282,11 @@ static void print_other_cpu_stall(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long gpnum) struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); long totqlen = 0; + /* Kick and suppress, if so configured. */ + rcu_stall_kick_kthreads(rsp); + if (rcu_cpu_stall_suppress) + return; + /* Only let one CPU complain about others per time interval. */ raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags); @@ -1335,6 +1360,11 @@ static void print_cpu_stall(struct rcu_state *rsp) struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); long totqlen = 0; + /* Kick and suppress, if so configured. */ + rcu_stall_kick_kthreads(rsp); + if (rcu_cpu_stall_suppress) + return; + /* * OK, time to rat on ourselves... * See Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt for info on how to debug @@ -1379,8 +1409,10 @@ static void check_cpu_stall(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp) unsigned long js; struct rcu_node *rnp; - if (rcu_cpu_stall_suppress || !rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) + if ((rcu_cpu_stall_suppress && !rcu_kick_kthreads) || + !rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) return; + rcu_stall_kick_kthreads(rsp); j = jiffies; /* @@ -2119,8 +2151,11 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg) } ret = 0; for (;;) { - if (!ret) + if (!ret) { rsp->jiffies_force_qs = jiffies + j; + WRITE_ONCE(rsp->jiffies_kick_kthreads, + jiffies + 3 * j); + } trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, READ_ONCE(rsp->gpnum), TPS("fqswait")); diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h index df668c0f9e64..34d3973f7223 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h @@ -513,6 +513,8 @@ struct rcu_state { unsigned long jiffies_force_qs; /* Time at which to invoke */ /* force_quiescent_state(). */ + unsigned long jiffies_kick_kthreads; /* Time at which to kick */ + /* kthreads, if configured. */ unsigned long n_force_qs; /* Number of calls to */ /* force_quiescent_state(). */ unsigned long n_force_qs_lh; /* ~Number of calls leaving */ From 293e2421fe25839500207eda123cc4475f8d17b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Boqun Feng Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:11:48 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 30/56] rcu: Remove superfluous versions of rcu_read_lock_sched_held() Currently, we have four versions of rcu_read_lock_sched_held(), depending on the combined choices on PREEMPT_COUNT and DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC. However, there is an existing function preemptible() that already distinguishes between the PREEMPT_COUNT=y and PREEMPT_COUNT=n cases, and allows these four implementations to be consolidated down to two. This commit therefore uses preemptible() to achieve this consolidation. Note that there could be a small performance regression in the case of CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y && PREEMPT_COUNT=n. However, given the overhead associated with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y, this should be down in the noise. Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- include/linux/rcupdate.h | 17 +---------------- kernel/rcu/update.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h index 45de591657a6..5f1533e3d032 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h @@ -508,14 +508,7 @@ int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void); * CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, this assumes we are in an RCU-sched read-side * critical section unless it can prove otherwise. */ -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void); -#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */ -static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void) -{ - return 1; -} -#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */ #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */ @@ -532,18 +525,10 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void) return 1; } -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void) { - return preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled(); + return !preemptible(); } -#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */ -static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void) -{ - return 1; -} -#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */ - #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */ #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c index ca828b41c938..3ccdc8eebc5a 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static int rcu_normal_after_boot; module_param(rcu_normal_after_boot, int, 0); #endif /* #ifndef CONFIG_TINY_RCU */ -#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC) && defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT) +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC /** * rcu_read_lock_sched_held() - might we be in RCU-sched read-side critical section? * @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void) return 0; if (debug_locks) lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); - return lockdep_opinion || preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled(); + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(rcu_read_lock_sched_held); #endif From 5dffed1e5721f6deae4fd67d32386ef037c5fc56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:54:28 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 31/56] rcu: Dump ftrace buffer when kicking grace-period kthread If it is necessary to kick the grace-period kthread, that is a good time to dump the trace buffer in order to learn why kicking was needed. This commit therefore does the dump. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index a739292be605..86edb92276d3 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -1266,6 +1266,7 @@ static void rcu_stall_kick_kthreads(struct rcu_state *rsp) j = READ_ONCE(rsp->jiffies_kick_kthreads); if (time_after(jiffies, j) && rsp->gp_kthread) { WARN_ONCE(1, "Kicking %s grace-period kthread\n", rsp->name); + rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); wake_up_process(rsp->gp_kthread); WRITE_ONCE(rsp->jiffies_kick_kthreads, j + HZ); } From fd35be623a1534bde57029c429b206d6c22a1ef6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:13:12 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 32/56] rcutorture: Update scripting to accommodate rcuperf This commit adds the scripting changes to add support for the shiny new rcuperf kernel module. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++ .../selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck.sh | 5 +- tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh | 2 +- .../rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFLIST | 1 + .../rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFcommon | 2 + .../selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE | 19 +++++ .../configs/rcuperf/ver_functions.sh | 52 ++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 161 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFLIST create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFcommon create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/ver_functions.sh diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh new file mode 100755 index 000000000000..e5b28174fda0 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# +# Analyze a given results directory for rcuperf performance measurements. +# +# Usage: kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh resdir +# +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or +# (at your option) any later version. +# +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +# GNU General Public License for more details. +# +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +# along with this program; if not, you can access it online at +# http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html. +# +# Copyright (C) IBM Corporation, 2016 +# +# Authors: Paul E. McKenney + +i="$1" +if test -d $i +then + : +else + echo Unreadable results directory: $i + exit 1 +fi +. tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/functions.sh + +configfile=`echo $i | sed -e 's/^.*\///'` + +grep -e '-perf:.*writer-duration' $i/console.log | sed -e 's/^\[[^]]*]//' | +awk ' +{ + gptimes[++n] = $5 / 1000.; + sum += $5 / 1000.; +} + +END { + if (NR <= 0) { + print "No rcuperf records found???" + exit; + } + asort(gptimes); + pct50 = int(NR * 50 / 100); + if (pct50 < 1) + pct50 = 1; + pct90 = int(NR * 90 / 100); + if (pct90 < 1) + pct90 = 1; + pct99 = int(NR * 99 / 100); + if (pct99 < 1) + pct99 = 1; + div = 10 ** int(log(gptimes[pct90]) / log(10) + .5) / 100; + print "Histogram bucket size: " div; + last = gptimes[1] - 10; + count = 0; + for (i = 1; i <= NR; i++) { + current = div * int(gptimes[i] / div); + if (last == current) { + count++; + } else { + if (count > 0) + print last, count; + count = 1; + last = current; + } + } + if (count > 0) + print last, count; + print "Average grace-period duration: " sum / NR " microseconds"; + print "Minimum grace-period duration: " gptimes[1]; + print "50th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct50]; + print "90th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct90]; + print "99th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct99]; + print "Maximum grace-period duration: " gptimes[NR]; +}' diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck.sh index d86bdd6b6cc2..f659346d3358 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck.sh @@ -48,7 +48,10 @@ do cat $i/Make.oldconfig.err fi parse-build.sh $i/Make.out $configfile - parse-torture.sh $i/console.log $configfile + if test "$TORTURE_SUITE" != rcuperf + then + parse-torture.sh $i/console.log $configfile + fi parse-console.sh $i/console.log $configfile if test -r $i/Warnings then diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh index 4a431767f77a..c33cb582b3dc 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ do shift ;; --torture) - checkarg --torture "(suite name)" "$#" "$2" '^\(lock\|rcu\)$' '^--' + checkarg --torture "(suite name)" "$#" "$2" '^\(lock\|rcu\|rcuperf\)$' '^--' TORTURE_SUITE=$2 shift ;; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFLIST b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFLIST new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..c9f56cf20775 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFLIST @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +TREE diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFcommon b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFcommon new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..a09816b8c0f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/CFcommon @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST=y +CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME=y diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..614e107f6db5 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +CONFIG_SMP=y +CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=n +CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=n +CONFIG_PREEMPT=y +#CHECK#CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y +CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC=n +CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y +CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=n +CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=n +CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=n +CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n +CONFIG_SUSPEND=n +CONFIG_HIBERNATION=n +CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n +CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=n +CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=n +CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=n +CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=n +CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT=y diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/ver_functions.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/ver_functions.sh new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..34f2a1b35ee5 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/ver_functions.sh @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# +# Torture-suite-dependent shell functions for the rest of the scripts. +# +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or +# (at your option) any later version. +# +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +# GNU General Public License for more details. +# +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +# along with this program; if not, you can access it online at +# http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html. +# +# Copyright (C) IBM Corporation, 2015 +# +# Authors: Paul E. McKenney + +# rcuperf_param_nreaders bootparam-string +# +# Adds nreaders rcuperf module parameter if not already specified. +rcuperf_param_nreaders () { + if ! echo "$1" | grep -q "rcuperf.nreaders" + then + echo rcuperf.nreaders=-1 + fi +} + +# rcuperf_param_nwriters bootparam-string +# +# Adds nwriters rcuperf module parameter if not already specified. +rcuperf_param_nwriters () { + if ! echo "$1" | grep -q "rcuperf.nwriters" + then + echo rcuperf.nwriters=-1 + fi +} + +# per_version_boot_params bootparam-string config-file seconds +# +# Adds per-version torture-module parameters to kernels supporting them. +per_version_boot_params () { + echo $1 `rcuperf_param_nreaders "$1"` \ + `rcuperf_param_nwriters "$1"` \ + rcuperf.perf_runnable=1 \ + rcuperf.shutdown=1 \ + rcuperf.verbose=1 +} From 9efafb8849f732a3497f46f178b350c9ff7cfe27 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:11:47 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 33/56] rcutorture: Allow for rcupdate.rcu_normal Currently, rcu_torture_writer() checks only for rcu_gp_is_expedited() when deciding whether or not to do dynamic control of RCU expediting. This means that if rcupdate.rcu_normal is specified, rcu_torture_writer() will attempt to dynamically control RCU expediting, but will nonetheless only test normal RCU grace periods. This commit therefore adds a check for !rcu_gp_is_normal(), and prints a message and desists from testing dynamic control of RCU expediting when doing so is futile. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c index 463867c43221..9234e75b106a 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c @@ -916,7 +916,7 @@ rcu_torture_fqs(void *arg) static int rcu_torture_writer(void *arg) { - bool can_expedite = !rcu_gp_is_expedited(); + bool can_expedite = !rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal(); int expediting = 0; unsigned long gp_snap; bool gp_cond1 = gp_cond, gp_exp1 = gp_exp, gp_normal1 = gp_normal; @@ -932,7 +932,7 @@ rcu_torture_writer(void *arg) VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("rcu_torture_writer task started"); if (!can_expedite) { pr_alert("%s" TORTURE_FLAG - " Grace periods expedited from boot/sysfs for %s,\n", + " GP expediting controlled from boot/sysfs for %s,\n", torture_type, cur_ops->name); pr_alert("%s" TORTURE_FLAG " Disabled dynamic grace-period expediting.\n", From 291783b8ad77a83a6fdf91d55eee7f1ad72ed4d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:43:30 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 34/56] rcutorture: Expedited-GP batch progress access to torturing This commit provides rcu_exp_batches_completed() and rcu_exp_batches_completed_sched() functions to allow torture-test modules to check how many expedited grace period batches have completed. These are analogous to the existing rcu_batches_completed(), rcu_batches_completed_bh(), and rcu_batches_completed_sched() functions. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- include/linux/rcutiny.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ include/linux/rcutree.h | 2 ++ kernel/rcu/tree.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/rcutiny.h b/include/linux/rcutiny.h index 64809aea661c..93aea75029fb 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcutiny.h +++ b/include/linux/rcutiny.h @@ -149,6 +149,22 @@ static inline unsigned long rcu_batches_completed_sched(void) return 0; } +/* + * Return the number of expedited grace periods completed. + */ +static inline unsigned long rcu_exp_batches_completed(void) +{ + return 0; +} + +/* + * Return the number of expedited sched grace periods completed. + */ +static inline unsigned long rcu_exp_batches_completed_sched(void) +{ + return 0; +} + static inline void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) { } diff --git a/include/linux/rcutree.h b/include/linux/rcutree.h index ad1eda9fa4da..5043cb823fb2 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcutree.h +++ b/include/linux/rcutree.h @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ unsigned long rcu_batches_started_sched(void); unsigned long rcu_batches_completed(void); unsigned long rcu_batches_completed_bh(void); unsigned long rcu_batches_completed_sched(void); +unsigned long rcu_exp_batches_completed(void); +unsigned long rcu_exp_batches_completed_sched(void); void show_rcu_gp_kthreads(void); void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void); diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 531a328076bd..88df64087dfe 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -459,6 +459,28 @@ unsigned long rcu_batches_completed_bh(void) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_batches_completed_bh); +/* + * Return the number of RCU expedited batches completed thus far for + * debug & stats. Odd numbers mean that a batch is in progress, even + * numbers mean idle. The value returned will thus be roughly double + * the cumulative batches since boot. + */ +unsigned long rcu_exp_batches_completed(void) +{ + return rcu_state_p->expedited_sequence; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_exp_batches_completed); + +/* + * Return the number of RCU-sched expedited batches completed thus far + * for debug & stats. Similar to rcu_exp_batches_completed(). + */ +unsigned long rcu_exp_batches_completed_sched(void) +{ + return rcu_sched_state.expedited_sequence; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_exp_batches_completed_sched); + /* * Force a quiescent state. */ From 8704baab9bc848b58c129fed6b591bb84ec02f41 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:33:22 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 35/56] rcutorture: Add RCU grace-period performance tests This commit adds a new rcuperf module that carries out simple performance tests of RCU grace periods. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/Makefile | 1 + kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 637 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ lib/Kconfig.debug | 33 +++ 3 files changed, 671 insertions(+) create mode 100644 kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c diff --git a/kernel/rcu/Makefile b/kernel/rcu/Makefile index 032b2c015beb..18dfc485225c 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/Makefile +++ b/kernel/rcu/Makefile @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ KCOV_INSTRUMENT := n obj-y += update.o sync.o obj-$(CONFIG_SRCU) += srcu.o obj-$(CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST) += rcutorture.o +obj-$(CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST) += rcuperf.o obj-$(CONFIG_TREE_RCU) += tree.o obj-$(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) += tree.o obj-$(CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE) += tree_trace.o diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..9d54a57bee7d --- /dev/null +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -0,0 +1,637 @@ +/* + * Read-Copy Update module-based performance-test facility + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or + * (at your option) any later version. + * + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + * GNU General Public License for more details. + * + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + * along with this program; if not, you can access it online at + * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html. + * + * Copyright (C) IBM Corporation, 2015 + * + * Authors: Paul E. McKenney + */ +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); +MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney "); + +#define PERF_FLAG "-perf:" +#define PERFOUT_STRING(s) \ + pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG s "\n", perf_type) +#define VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING(s) \ + do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG " %s\n", perf_type, s); } while (0) +#define VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING(s) \ + do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "!!! %s\n", perf_type, s); } while (0) + +torture_param(bool, gp_exp, true, "Use expedited GP wait primitives"); +torture_param(int, nreaders, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads"); +torture_param(int, nwriters, -1, "Number of RCU updater threads"); +torture_param(bool, shutdown, false, "Shutdown at end of performance tests."); +torture_param(bool, verbose, true, "Enable verbose debugging printk()s"); + +static char *perf_type = "rcu"; +module_param(perf_type, charp, 0444); +MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_type, "Type of RCU to performance-test (rcu, rcu_bh, ...)"); + +static int nrealreaders; +static int nrealwriters; +static struct task_struct **writer_tasks; +static struct task_struct **reader_tasks; +static struct task_struct *shutdown_task; + +static u64 **writer_durations; +static int *writer_n_durations; +static atomic_t n_rcu_perf_reader_started; +static atomic_t n_rcu_perf_writer_started; +static atomic_t n_rcu_perf_writer_finished; +static wait_queue_head_t shutdown_wq; +static u64 t_rcu_perf_writer_started; +static u64 t_rcu_perf_writer_finished; +static unsigned long b_rcu_perf_writer_started; +static unsigned long b_rcu_perf_writer_finished; + +static int rcu_perf_writer_state; +#define RTWS_INIT 0 +#define RTWS_EXP_SYNC 1 +#define RTWS_SYNC 2 +#define RTWS_IDLE 2 +#define RTWS_STOPPING 3 + +#define MAX_MEAS 10000 +#define MIN_MEAS 100 + +#if defined(MODULE) || defined(CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST_RUNNABLE) +#define RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT 1 +#else +#define RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT 0 +#endif +static int perf_runnable = RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT; +module_param(perf_runnable, int, 0444); +MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_runnable, "Start rcuperf at boot"); + +/* + * Operations vector for selecting different types of tests. + */ + +struct rcu_perf_ops { + int ptype; + void (*init)(void); + void (*cleanup)(void); + int (*readlock)(void); + void (*readunlock)(int idx); + unsigned long (*started)(void); + unsigned long (*completed)(void); + unsigned long (*exp_completed)(void); + void (*sync)(void); + void (*exp_sync)(void); + const char *name; +}; + +static struct rcu_perf_ops *cur_ops; + +/* + * Definitions for rcu perf testing. + */ + +static int rcu_perf_read_lock(void) __acquires(RCU) +{ + rcu_read_lock(); + return 0; +} + +static void rcu_perf_read_unlock(int idx) __releases(RCU) +{ + rcu_read_unlock(); +} + +static unsigned long __maybe_unused rcu_no_completed(void) +{ + return 0; +} + +static void rcu_sync_perf_init(void) +{ +} + +static struct rcu_perf_ops rcu_ops = { + .ptype = RCU_FLAVOR, + .init = rcu_sync_perf_init, + .readlock = rcu_perf_read_lock, + .readunlock = rcu_perf_read_unlock, + .started = rcu_batches_started, + .completed = rcu_batches_completed, + .exp_completed = rcu_exp_batches_completed, + .sync = synchronize_rcu, + .exp_sync = synchronize_rcu_expedited, + .name = "rcu" +}; + +/* + * Definitions for rcu_bh perf testing. + */ + +static int rcu_bh_perf_read_lock(void) __acquires(RCU_BH) +{ + rcu_read_lock_bh(); + return 0; +} + +static void rcu_bh_perf_read_unlock(int idx) __releases(RCU_BH) +{ + rcu_read_unlock_bh(); +} + +static struct rcu_perf_ops rcu_bh_ops = { + .ptype = RCU_BH_FLAVOR, + .init = rcu_sync_perf_init, + .readlock = rcu_bh_perf_read_lock, + .readunlock = rcu_bh_perf_read_unlock, + .started = rcu_batches_started_bh, + .completed = rcu_batches_completed_bh, + .exp_completed = rcu_exp_batches_completed_sched, + .sync = synchronize_rcu_bh, + .exp_sync = synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited, + .name = "rcu_bh" +}; + +/* + * Definitions for srcu perf testing. + */ + +DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(srcu_ctl_perf); +static struct srcu_struct *srcu_ctlp = &srcu_ctl_perf; + +static int srcu_perf_read_lock(void) __acquires(srcu_ctlp) +{ + return srcu_read_lock(srcu_ctlp); +} + +static void srcu_perf_read_unlock(int idx) __releases(srcu_ctlp) +{ + srcu_read_unlock(srcu_ctlp, idx); +} + +static unsigned long srcu_perf_completed(void) +{ + return srcu_batches_completed(srcu_ctlp); +} + +static void srcu_perf_synchronize(void) +{ + synchronize_srcu(srcu_ctlp); +} + +static void srcu_perf_synchronize_expedited(void) +{ + synchronize_srcu_expedited(srcu_ctlp); +} + +static struct rcu_perf_ops srcu_ops = { + .ptype = SRCU_FLAVOR, + .init = rcu_sync_perf_init, + .readlock = srcu_perf_read_lock, + .readunlock = srcu_perf_read_unlock, + .started = NULL, + .completed = srcu_perf_completed, + .exp_completed = srcu_perf_completed, + .sync = srcu_perf_synchronize, + .exp_sync = srcu_perf_synchronize_expedited, + .name = "srcu" +}; + +/* + * Definitions for sched perf testing. + */ + +static int sched_perf_read_lock(void) +{ + preempt_disable(); + return 0; +} + +static void sched_perf_read_unlock(int idx) +{ + preempt_enable(); +} + +static struct rcu_perf_ops sched_ops = { + .ptype = RCU_SCHED_FLAVOR, + .init = rcu_sync_perf_init, + .readlock = sched_perf_read_lock, + .readunlock = sched_perf_read_unlock, + .started = rcu_batches_started_sched, + .completed = rcu_batches_completed_sched, + .exp_completed = rcu_exp_batches_completed_sched, + .sync = synchronize_sched, + .exp_sync = synchronize_sched_expedited, + .name = "sched" +}; + +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU + +/* + * Definitions for RCU-tasks perf testing. + */ + +static int tasks_perf_read_lock(void) +{ + return 0; +} + +static void tasks_perf_read_unlock(int idx) +{ +} + +static struct rcu_perf_ops tasks_ops = { + .ptype = RCU_TASKS_FLAVOR, + .init = rcu_sync_perf_init, + .readlock = tasks_perf_read_lock, + .readunlock = tasks_perf_read_unlock, + .started = rcu_no_completed, + .completed = rcu_no_completed, + .sync = synchronize_rcu_tasks, + .exp_sync = synchronize_rcu_tasks, + .name = "tasks" +}; + +#define RCUPERF_TASKS_OPS &tasks_ops, + +static bool __maybe_unused torturing_tasks(void) +{ + return cur_ops == &tasks_ops; +} + +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU */ + +#define RCUPERF_TASKS_OPS + +static bool __maybe_unused torturing_tasks(void) +{ + return false; +} + +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU */ + +/* + * If performance tests complete, wait for shutdown to commence. + */ +static void rcu_perf_wait_shutdown(void) +{ + cond_resched_rcu_qs(); + if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished) < nrealwriters) + return; + while (!torture_must_stop()) + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); +} + +/* + * RCU perf reader kthread. Repeatedly does empty RCU read-side + * critical section, minimizing update-side interference. + */ +static int +rcu_perf_reader(void *arg) +{ + unsigned long flags; + int idx; + + VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_reader task started"); + set_user_nice(current, MAX_NICE); + atomic_inc(&n_rcu_perf_reader_started); + + do { + local_irq_save(flags); + idx = cur_ops->readlock(); + cur_ops->readunlock(idx); + local_irq_restore(flags); + rcu_perf_wait_shutdown(); + } while (!torture_must_stop()); + torture_kthread_stopping("rcu_perf_reader"); + return 0; +} + +/* + * RCU perf writer kthread. Repeatedly does a grace period. + */ +static int +rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) +{ + int i = 0; + int i_max; + long me = (long)arg; + bool started = false, done = false, alldone = false; + u64 t; + u64 *wdp; + u64 *wdpp = writer_durations[me]; + + VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_writer task started"); + WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp); + WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp); + WARN_ON(!wdpp); + t = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns(); + if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_started) >= nrealwriters) { + t_rcu_perf_writer_started = t; + if (gp_exp) { + b_rcu_perf_writer_started = + cur_ops->exp_completed() / 2; + } else { + b_rcu_perf_writer_started = + cur_ops->completed(); + } + } + + do { + wdp = &wdpp[i]; + *wdp = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns(); + if (gp_exp) { + rcu_perf_writer_state = RTWS_EXP_SYNC; + cur_ops->exp_sync(); + } else { + rcu_perf_writer_state = RTWS_SYNC; + cur_ops->sync(); + } + rcu_perf_writer_state = RTWS_IDLE; + t = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns(); + *wdp = t - *wdp; + i_max = i; + if (!started && + atomic_read(&n_rcu_perf_writer_started) >= nrealwriters) + started = true; + if (!done && i >= MIN_MEAS) { + done = true; + pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG + "rcu_perf_writer %ld has %d measurements\n", + perf_type, me, MIN_MEAS); + if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished) >= + nrealwriters) { + PERFOUT_STRING("Test complete"); + t_rcu_perf_writer_finished = t; + if (gp_exp) { + b_rcu_perf_writer_finished = + cur_ops->exp_completed() / 2; + } else { + b_rcu_perf_writer_finished = + cur_ops->completed(); + } + smp_mb(); /* Assign before wake. */ + wake_up(&shutdown_wq); + } + } + if (done && !alldone && + atomic_read(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished) >= nrealwriters) + alldone = true; + if (started && !alldone && i < MAX_MEAS - 1) + i++; + rcu_perf_wait_shutdown(); + } while (!torture_must_stop()); + rcu_perf_writer_state = RTWS_STOPPING; + writer_n_durations[me] = i_max; + torture_kthread_stopping("rcu_perf_writer"); + return 0; +} + +static inline void +rcu_perf_print_module_parms(struct rcu_perf_ops *cur_ops, const char *tag) +{ + pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG + "--- %s: nreaders=%d nwriters=%d verbose=%d shutdown=%d\n", + perf_type, tag, nrealreaders, nrealwriters, verbose, shutdown); +} + +static void +rcu_perf_cleanup(void) +{ + int i; + int j; + int ngps = 0; + u64 *wdp; + u64 *wdpp; + + if (torture_cleanup_begin()) + return; + + if (reader_tasks) { + for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) + torture_stop_kthread(rcu_perf_reader, + reader_tasks[i]); + kfree(reader_tasks); + } + + if (writer_tasks) { + for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) { + torture_stop_kthread(rcu_perf_writer, + writer_tasks[i]); + if (!writer_n_durations) + continue; + j = writer_n_durations[i]; + pr_alert("%s%s writer %d gps: %d\n", + perf_type, PERF_FLAG, i, j); + ngps += j; + } + pr_alert("%s%s start: %llu end: %llu duration: %llu gps: %d batches: %ld\n", + perf_type, PERF_FLAG, + t_rcu_perf_writer_started, t_rcu_perf_writer_finished, + t_rcu_perf_writer_finished - + t_rcu_perf_writer_started, + ngps, + b_rcu_perf_writer_finished - + b_rcu_perf_writer_started); + for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) { + if (!writer_durations) + break; + if (!writer_n_durations) + continue; + wdpp = writer_durations[i]; + if (!wdpp) + continue; + for (j = 0; j <= writer_n_durations[i]; j++) { + wdp = &wdpp[j]; + pr_alert("%s%s %4d writer-duration: %5d %llu\n", + perf_type, PERF_FLAG, + i, j, *wdp); + if (j % 100 == 0) + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); + } + kfree(writer_durations[i]); + } + kfree(writer_tasks); + kfree(writer_durations); + kfree(writer_n_durations); + } + + /* Do flavor-specific cleanup operations. */ + if (cur_ops->cleanup != NULL) + cur_ops->cleanup(); + + torture_cleanup_end(); +} + +/* + * Return the number if non-negative. If -1, the number of CPUs. + * If less than -1, that much less than the number of CPUs, but + * at least one. + */ +static int compute_real(int n) +{ + int nr; + + if (n >= 0) { + nr = n; + } else { + nr = num_online_cpus() + 1 + n; + if (nr <= 0) + nr = 1; + } + return nr; +} + +/* + * RCU perf shutdown kthread. Just waits to be awakened, then shuts + * down system. + */ +static int +rcu_perf_shutdown(void *arg) +{ + do { + wait_event(shutdown_wq, + atomic_read(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished) >= + nrealwriters); + } while (atomic_read(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished) < nrealwriters); + smp_mb(); /* Wake before output. */ + rcu_perf_cleanup(); + kernel_power_off(); + return -EINVAL; +} + +static int __init +rcu_perf_init(void) +{ + long i; + int firsterr = 0; + static struct rcu_perf_ops *perf_ops[] = { + &rcu_ops, &rcu_bh_ops, &srcu_ops, &sched_ops, + RCUPERF_TASKS_OPS + }; + + if (!torture_init_begin(perf_type, verbose, &perf_runnable)) + return -EBUSY; + + /* Process args and tell the world that the perf'er is on the job. */ + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(perf_ops); i++) { + cur_ops = perf_ops[i]; + if (strcmp(perf_type, cur_ops->name) == 0) + break; + } + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(perf_ops)) { + pr_alert("rcu-perf: invalid perf type: \"%s\"\n", + perf_type); + pr_alert("rcu-perf types:"); + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(perf_ops); i++) + pr_alert(" %s", perf_ops[i]->name); + pr_alert("\n"); + firsterr = -EINVAL; + goto unwind; + } + if (cur_ops->init) + cur_ops->init(); + + nrealwriters = compute_real(nwriters); + nrealreaders = compute_real(nreaders); + atomic_set(&n_rcu_perf_reader_started, 0); + atomic_set(&n_rcu_perf_writer_started, 0); + atomic_set(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished, 0); + rcu_perf_print_module_parms(cur_ops, "Start of test"); + + /* Start up the kthreads. */ + + if (shutdown) { + init_waitqueue_head(&shutdown_wq); + firsterr = torture_create_kthread(rcu_perf_shutdown, NULL, + shutdown_task); + if (firsterr) + goto unwind; + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); + } + reader_tasks = kcalloc(nrealreaders, sizeof(reader_tasks[0]), + GFP_KERNEL); + if (reader_tasks == NULL) { + VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("out of memory"); + firsterr = -ENOMEM; + goto unwind; + } + for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) { + firsterr = torture_create_kthread(rcu_perf_reader, NULL, + reader_tasks[i]); + if (firsterr) + goto unwind; + } + while (atomic_read(&n_rcu_perf_reader_started) < nrealreaders) + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); + writer_tasks = kcalloc(nrealwriters, sizeof(reader_tasks[0]), + GFP_KERNEL); + writer_durations = kcalloc(nrealwriters, sizeof(*writer_durations), + GFP_KERNEL); + writer_n_durations = + kcalloc(nrealwriters, sizeof(*writer_n_durations), + GFP_KERNEL); + if (!writer_tasks || !writer_durations || !writer_n_durations) { + VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("out of memory"); + firsterr = -ENOMEM; + goto unwind; + } + for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) { + writer_durations[i] = + kcalloc(MAX_MEAS, sizeof(*writer_durations[i]), + GFP_KERNEL); + if (!writer_durations[i]) + goto unwind; + firsterr = torture_create_kthread(rcu_perf_writer, (void *)i, + writer_tasks[i]); + if (firsterr) + goto unwind; + } + torture_init_end(); + return 0; + +unwind: + torture_init_end(); + rcu_perf_cleanup(); + return firsterr; +} + +module_init(rcu_perf_init); +module_exit(rcu_perf_cleanup); diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 1e9a607534ca..f4b797a690ba 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -1289,6 +1289,39 @@ config TORTURE_TEST tristate default n +config RCU_PERF_TEST + tristate "performance tests for RCU" + depends on DEBUG_KERNEL + select TORTURE_TEST + select SRCU + select TASKS_RCU + default n + help + This option provides a kernel module that runs performance + tests on the RCU infrastructure. The kernel module may be built + after the fact on the running kernel to be tested, if desired. + + Say Y here if you want RCU performance tests to be built into + the kernel. + Say M if you want the RCU performance tests to build as a module. + Say N if you are unsure. + +config RCU_PERF_TEST_RUNNABLE + bool "performance tests for RCU runnable by default" + depends on RCU_PERF_TEST = y + default n + help + This option provides a way to build the RCU performance tests + directly into the kernel without them starting up at boot time. + You can use /sys/module to manually override this setting. + This /proc file is available only when the RCU performance + tests have been built into the kernel. + + Say Y here if you want the RCU performance tests to start during + boot (you probably don't). + Say N here if you want the RCU performance tests to start only + after being manually enabled via /sys/module. + config RCU_TORTURE_TEST tristate "torture tests for RCU" depends on DEBUG_KERNEL From bdea9e347783c2724997db7c5d5b45a301e2dc90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 13:47:19 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 36/56] rcutorture: Documentation for rcuperf kernel parameters This commit adds documentation for the new rcuperf module's kernel boot parameters. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt index ecc74fa4bfde..951af481da5a 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt @@ -3284,6 +3284,38 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted. Lazy RCU callbacks are those which RCU can prove do nothing more than free memory. + rcuperf.gp_exp= [KNL] + Measure performance of expedited synchronous + grace-period primitives. + + rcuperf.nreaders= [KNL] + Set number of RCU readers. The value -1 selects + N, where N is the number of CPUs. A value + "n" less than -1 selects N-n+1, where N is again + the number of CPUs. For example, -2 selects N + (the number of CPUs), -3 selects N+1, and so on. + A value of "n" less than or equal to -N selects + a single reader. + + rcuperf.nwriters= [KNL] + Set number of RCU writers. The values operate + the same as for rcuperf.nreaders. + N, where N is the number of CPUs + + rcuperf.perf_runnable= [BOOT] + Start rcuperf running at boot time. + + rcuperf.shutdown= [KNL] + Shut the system down after performance tests + complete. This is useful for hands-off automated + testing. + + rcuperf.perf_type= [KNL] + Specify the RCU implementation to test. + + rcuperf.verbose= [KNL] + Enable additional printk() statements. + rcutorture.cbflood_inter_holdoff= [KNL] Set holdoff time (jiffies) between successive callback-flood tests. From 6b558c4c7a4ba410e39dbcb9d4c2b6e928c09308 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 37/56] rcutorture: Bind rcuperf reader/writer kthreads to CPUs This commit forces more deterministic behavior by binding rcuperf's rcu_perf_reader() and rcu_perf_writer() kthreads to their respective CPUs. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c index 9d54a57bee7d..7a1edf417d18 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -328,8 +328,10 @@ rcu_perf_reader(void *arg) { unsigned long flags; int idx; + long me = (long)arg; VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_reader task started"); + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids)); set_user_nice(current, MAX_NICE); atomic_inc(&n_rcu_perf_reader_started); @@ -362,6 +364,7 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp); WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp); WARN_ON(!wdpp); + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids)); t = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns(); if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_started) >= nrealwriters) { t_rcu_perf_writer_started = t; @@ -594,7 +597,7 @@ rcu_perf_init(void) goto unwind; } for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) { - firsterr = torture_create_kthread(rcu_perf_reader, NULL, + firsterr = torture_create_kthread(rcu_perf_reader, (void *)i, reader_tasks[i]); if (firsterr) goto unwind; From 2094c99558d9e9374210898f65f5862f7a2e8bed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:17:21 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 38/56] rcutorture: Set rcuperf writer kthreads to real-time priority This commit forces more deterministic update-side behavior by setting rcuperf's rcu_perf_writer() kthreads to real-time priority. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c index 7a1edf417d18..e18d016a9888 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) int i = 0; int i_max; long me = (long)arg; + struct sched_param sp; bool started = false, done = false, alldone = false; u64 t; u64 *wdp; @@ -365,6 +366,8 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp); WARN_ON(!wdpp); set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids)); + sp.sched_priority = 1; + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, &sp); t = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns(); if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_started) >= nrealwriters) { t_rcu_perf_writer_started = t; From e588f35492227cc4ab2cbfe95fd5f993a5086f9f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:26:35 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 39/56] rcutorture: Print measure of batching efficiency This commit adds a line giving the number of grace periods, the number of batches, and the ratio. The larger the ratio, the greater the batching efficiency. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh | 26 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh index e5b28174fda0..1f72df8eedc7 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh @@ -34,33 +34,38 @@ fi configfile=`echo $i | sed -e 's/^.*\///'` -grep -e '-perf:.*writer-duration' $i/console.log | sed -e 's/^\[[^]]*]//' | +sed -e 's/^\[[^]]*]//' < $i/console.log | awk ' -{ +/-perf: .* gps: .* batches:/ { + ngps = $9; + nbatches = $11; +} + +/-perf: .*writer-duration/ { gptimes[++n] = $5 / 1000.; sum += $5 / 1000.; } END { - if (NR <= 0) { + newNR = asort(gptimes); + if (newNR <= 0) { print "No rcuperf records found???" exit; } - asort(gptimes); - pct50 = int(NR * 50 / 100); + pct50 = int(newNR * 50 / 100); if (pct50 < 1) pct50 = 1; - pct90 = int(NR * 90 / 100); + pct90 = int(newNR * 90 / 100); if (pct90 < 1) pct90 = 1; - pct99 = int(NR * 99 / 100); + pct99 = int(newNR * 99 / 100); if (pct99 < 1) pct99 = 1; div = 10 ** int(log(gptimes[pct90]) / log(10) + .5) / 100; print "Histogram bucket size: " div; last = gptimes[1] - 10; count = 0; - for (i = 1; i <= NR; i++) { + for (i = 1; i <= newNR; i++) { current = div * int(gptimes[i] / div); if (last == current) { count++; @@ -73,10 +78,11 @@ END { } if (count > 0) print last, count; - print "Average grace-period duration: " sum / NR " microseconds"; + print "Average grace-period duration: " sum / newNR " microseconds"; print "Minimum grace-period duration: " gptimes[1]; print "50th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct50]; print "90th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct90]; print "99th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct99]; - print "Maximum grace-period duration: " gptimes[NR]; + print "Maximum grace-period duration: " gptimes[newNR]; + print "Grace periods: " ngps + 0 " Batches: " nbatches + 0 " Ratio: " ngps / nbatches; }' From ac2bb275e8e5abddb0815ff2b7aa383ed6d007a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:58:17 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 40/56] rcutorture: Make rcuperf collect expedited event-trace data This commit enables ftrace in the rcuperf TREE kernel build and adds an ftrace_dump() at the end of rcuperf processing. This data will be used to measure the actual durations of the expedited grace periods without the added delays inherent in the kernel-module measurements. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c index e18d016a9888..12561f96f0a2 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -404,6 +404,7 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) perf_type, me, MIN_MEAS); if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished) >= nrealwriters) { + rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); PERFOUT_STRING("Test complete"); t_rcu_perf_writer_finished = t; if (gp_exp) { diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE index 614e107f6db5..a312f671a29a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE @@ -17,3 +17,4 @@ CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=n CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=n CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=n CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT=y +CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y From 2b03d038457fc8d694d34981cb0a2f1702ba35d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 16:51:36 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 41/56] rcutorture: Make scripts analyze rcuperf trace data, if present The rcuperf event-trace data is more accurate than are the rcuperf printk()s because locking keeps things ordered. This commit therefore parses and analyzes this event-trace data if present, and falls back on the printk()s otherwise. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf-ftrace.sh | 121 ++++++++++++++++++ .../rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh | 8 ++ 2 files changed, 129 insertions(+) create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf-ftrace.sh diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf-ftrace.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf-ftrace.sh new file mode 100755 index 000000000000..f79b0e9e84fc --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf-ftrace.sh @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# +# Analyze a given results directory for rcuperf performance measurements, +# looking for ftrace data. Exits with 0 if data was found, analyzed, and +# printed. Intended to be invoked from kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh after +# argument checking. +# +# Usage: kvm-recheck-rcuperf-ftrace.sh resdir +# +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or +# (at your option) any later version. +# +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +# GNU General Public License for more details. +# +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +# along with this program; if not, you can access it online at +# http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html. +# +# Copyright (C) IBM Corporation, 2016 +# +# Authors: Paul E. McKenney + +i="$1" +. tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/functions.sh + +if test "`grep -c 'rcu_exp_grace_period.*start' < $i/console.log`" -lt 100 +then + exit 10 +fi + +sed -e 's/^\[[^]]*]//' < $i/console.log | +grep 'us : rcu_exp_grace_period' | +sed -e 's/us : / : /' | +tr -d '\015' | +awk ' +$8 == "start" { + if (starttask != "") + nlost++; + starttask = $1; + starttime = $3; + startseq = $7; +} + +$8 == "end" { + if (starttask == $1 && startseq == $7) { + curgpdur = $3 - starttime; + gptimes[++n] = curgpdur; + gptaskcnt[starttask]++; + sum += curgpdur; + if (curgpdur > 1000) + print "Long GP " starttime "us to " $3 "us (" curgpdur "us)"; + starttask = ""; + } else { + # Lost a message or some such, reset. + starttask = ""; + nlost++; + } +} + +$8 == "done" { + piggybackcnt[$1]++; +} + +END { + newNR = asort(gptimes); + if (newNR <= 0) { + print "No ftrace records found???" + exit 10; + } + pct50 = int(newNR * 50 / 100); + if (pct50 < 1) + pct50 = 1; + pct90 = int(newNR * 90 / 100); + if (pct90 < 1) + pct90 = 1; + pct99 = int(newNR * 99 / 100); + if (pct99 < 1) + pct99 = 1; + div = 10 ** int(log(gptimes[pct90]) / log(10) + .5) / 100; + print "Histogram bucket size: " div; + last = gptimes[1] - 10; + count = 0; + for (i = 1; i <= newNR; i++) { + current = div * int(gptimes[i] / div); + if (last == current) { + count++; + } else { + if (count > 0) + print last, count; + count = 1; + last = current; + } + } + if (count > 0) + print last, count; + print "Distribution of grace periods across tasks:"; + for (i in gptaskcnt) { + print "\t" i, gptaskcnt[i]; + nbatches += gptaskcnt[i]; + } + ngps = nbatches; + print "Distribution of piggybacking across tasks:"; + for (i in piggybackcnt) { + print "\t" i, piggybackcnt[i]; + ngps += piggybackcnt[i]; + } + print "Average grace-period duration: " sum / newNR " microseconds"; + print "Minimum grace-period duration: " gptimes[1]; + print "50th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct50]; + print "90th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct90]; + print "99th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct99]; + print "Maximum grace-period duration: " gptimes[newNR]; + print "Grace periods: " ngps + 0 " Batches: " nbatches + 0 " Ratio: " ngps / nbatches " Lost: " nlost + 0; + print "Computed from ftrace data."; +}' +exit 0 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh index 1f72df8eedc7..8f3121afc716 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-recheck-rcuperf.sh @@ -30,8 +30,15 @@ else echo Unreadable results directory: $i exit 1 fi +PATH=`pwd`/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin:$PATH; export PATH . tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/functions.sh +if kvm-recheck-rcuperf-ftrace.sh $i +then + # ftrace data was successfully analyzed, call it good! + exit 0 +fi + configfile=`echo $i | sed -e 's/^.*\///'` sed -e 's/^\[[^]]*]//' < $i/console.log | @@ -85,4 +92,5 @@ END { print "99th percentile grace-period duration: " gptimes[pct99]; print "Maximum grace-period duration: " gptimes[newNR]; print "Grace periods: " ngps + 0 " Batches: " nbatches + 0 " Ratio: " ngps / nbatches; + print "Computed from rcuperf printk output."; }' From df37e66bfdbb57e8cae7dbf39a0c66b1b8701338 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:56:38 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 42/56] rcutorture: Add rcuperf holdoff boot parameter to reduce interference Boot-time activity can legitimately grab CPUs for extended time periods, so the commit adds a boot parameter to delay the start of the performance test until boot has completed. Defaults to 10 seconds. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 6 ++++++ kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt index 951af481da5a..da9ee466789b 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt @@ -3288,6 +3288,12 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted. Measure performance of expedited synchronous grace-period primitives. + rcuperf.holdoff= [KNL] + Set test-start holdoff period. The purpose of + this parameter is to delay the start of the + test until boot completes in order to avoid + interference. + rcuperf.nreaders= [KNL] Set number of RCU readers. The value -1 selects N, where N is the number of CPUs. A value diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c index 12561f96f0a2..278600143bb6 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney "); do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "!!! %s\n", perf_type, s); } while (0) torture_param(bool, gp_exp, true, "Use expedited GP wait primitives"); +torture_param(int, holdoff, 10, "Holdoff time before test start (s)"); torture_param(int, nreaders, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads"); torture_param(int, nwriters, -1, "Number of RCU updater threads"); torture_param(bool, shutdown, false, "Shutdown at end of performance tests."); @@ -368,6 +369,10 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids)); sp.sched_priority = 1; sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, &sp); + + if (holdoff) + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(holdoff * HZ); + t = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns(); if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_started) >= nrealwriters) { t_rcu_perf_writer_started = t; From 620316e52a923811fe9a77ceb43eebf5f507d375 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:32:09 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 43/56] rcutorture: Avoid RCU CPU stall warning and RT throttling Running rcuperf can result in RCU CPU stall warnings and RT throttling. These occur because on of the real-time writer processes does ftrace_dump() while still running at real-time priority. This commit therefore prevents these problems by setting the writer thread back to SCHED_NORMAL (AKA SCHED_OTHER) before doing ftrace_dump(). In addition, this commit adds a small fixed delay before dumping ftrace buffer in order to decrease the probability that this dumping will interfere with other writers' grace periods. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c index 278600143bb6..4c0572859ff0 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -404,11 +404,15 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) started = true; if (!done && i >= MIN_MEAS) { done = true; + sp.sched_priority = 0; + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, + SCHED_NORMAL, &sp); pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "rcu_perf_writer %ld has %d measurements\n", perf_type, me, MIN_MEAS); if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_finished) >= nrealwriters) { + schedule_timeout_interruptible(10); rcu_ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); PERFOUT_STRING("Test complete"); t_rcu_perf_writer_finished = t; From dba6f1bab8920a6f78b0dc21976afdecf82fba3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:39:38 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 44/56] rcutorture: Add largish-system rcuperf scenario This commit adds an rcuperf scenario named TREE54 that uses 54 CPUs and provides a four-level rcu_node combining tree. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE54 | 23 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE54 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE54 b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE54 new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..985fb170d13c --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcuperf/TREE54 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +CONFIG_SMP=y +CONFIG_NR_CPUS=54 +CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=n +CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=n +CONFIG_PREEMPT=y +#CHECK#CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y +CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC=n +CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y +CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=n +CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=n +CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=n +CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n +CONFIG_SUSPEND=n +CONFIG_HIBERNATION=n +CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=3 +CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=2 +CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n +CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=n +CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=n +CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=n +CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=n +CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT=y +CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y From e6fb1fc1085e5b5155bc8f3d3385c48b8bdde95e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Artem Savkov Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 13:31:39 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 45/56] rcuperf: Do not wake up shutdown wait queue if "shutdown" is false. After finishing its tests rcuperf tries to wake up shutdown_wq even if "shutdown" param is set to false, resulting in a wake_up() call on an unitialized wait_queue_head_t which leads to "BUG: spinlock bad magic" and "BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference". Fix by checking "shutdown" param before waking up the queue. Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov --- kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c index 4c0572859ff0..3cee0d8393ed 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -423,8 +423,10 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg) b_rcu_perf_writer_finished = cur_ops->completed(); } - smp_mb(); /* Assign before wake. */ - wake_up(&shutdown_wq); + if (shutdown) { + smp_mb(); /* Assign before wake. */ + wake_up(&shutdown_wq); + } } } if (done && !alldone && From 67522beecfc75d133514dda64107ee19125a74b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:52:19 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 46/56] rcutorture: Remove redundant initialization to zero The current code initializes the global per-CPU variables rcu_torture_count and rcu_torture_batch to zero. However, C does this initialization by default, and explicit initialization of per-CPU variables now needs a different syntax if "make tags" is to work. This commit therefore removes the initialization. Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c index 9234e75b106a..52b49fe90919 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c @@ -130,8 +130,8 @@ static struct rcu_torture __rcu *rcu_torture_current; static unsigned long rcu_torture_current_version; static struct rcu_torture rcu_tortures[10 * RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN]; static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rcu_torture_lock); -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(long [RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN + 1], rcu_torture_count) = { 0 }; -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(long [RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN + 1], rcu_torture_batch) = { 0 }; +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(long [RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN + 1], rcu_torture_count); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(long [RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN + 1], rcu_torture_batch); static atomic_t rcu_torture_wcount[RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN + 1]; static atomic_t n_rcu_torture_alloc; static atomic_t n_rcu_torture_alloc_fail; From de26ca19a530d2d822a6816834d22022e94b2e53 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Anna-Maria Gleixner Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:14:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 47/56] rcutorture: Consider FROZEN hotplug notifier transitions The hotplug notifier rcutorture_cpu_notify() doesn't consider the corresponding CPU_XXX_FROZEN transitions. They occur on suspend/resume and are usually handled the same way as the corresponding non frozen transitions. Mask the switch case action argument with '~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN' to map CPU_XXX_FROZEN hotplug transitions on corresponding non-frozen transitions. Cc: Josh Triplett Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c index 52b49fe90919..633a68a09440 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c @@ -1585,7 +1585,7 @@ static int rcutorture_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self, { long cpu = (long)hcpu; - switch (action) { + switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) { case CPU_ONLINE: case CPU_DOWN_FAILED: (void)rcutorture_booster_init(cpu); From 9eb5188a0704bd21eb7e4aef83b904fad43d3ec8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:36:40 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 48/56] torture: Clarify refusal to run more than one torture test This commit clarifies error messages -- you only get to run one torture test at a time! Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/torture.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/torture.c b/kernel/torture.c index 44aa462d033f..e912ccd960f0 100644 --- a/kernel/torture.c +++ b/kernel/torture.c @@ -602,8 +602,9 @@ bool torture_init_begin(char *ttype, bool v, int *runnable) { mutex_lock(&fullstop_mutex); if (torture_type != NULL) { - pr_alert("torture_init_begin: refusing %s init: %s running", + pr_alert("torture_init_begin: Refusing %s init: %s running.\n", ttype, torture_type); + pr_alert("torture_init_begin: One torture test at a time!\n"); mutex_unlock(&fullstop_mutex); return false; } From fb2c66af10f92bc83659c4d8a32e02287f0e5dda Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:44:42 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 49/56] torture: Kill qemu, not parent process The current hang-check machinery in the rcutorture scripts uses "$!" of a parenthesized bash statement to capture the pid. Unfortunately, this captures not qemu's pid, but rather that of its parent that implements the parenthesized statement. This commit therefore adjusts things so as to capture qemu's actual pid, which then allows the script to actually kill qemu in event of a kernel hang. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh | 30 +++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh index 0f80eefb0bfd..2eb8fefbe7d9 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh @@ -168,14 +168,25 @@ then fi echo "NOTE: $QEMU either did not run or was interactive" > $resdir/console.log echo $QEMU $qemu_args -m 512 -kernel $resdir/bzImage -append \"$qemu_append $boot_args\" > $resdir/qemu-cmd -( $QEMU $qemu_args -m 512 -kernel $resdir/bzImage -append "$qemu_append $boot_args"; echo $? > $resdir/qemu-retval ) & -qemu_pid=$! +( $QEMU $qemu_args -m 512 -kernel $resdir/bzImage -append "$qemu_append $boot_args"& echo $! > $resdir/qemu_pid; wait `cat $resdir/qemu_pid`; echo $? > $resdir/qemu-retval ) & commandcompleted=0 -echo Monitoring qemu job at pid $qemu_pid +sleep 10 # Give qemu's pid a chance to reach the file +if test -s "$resdir/qemu_pid" +then + qemu_pid=`cat "$resdir/qemu_pid"` + echo Monitoring qemu job at pid $qemu_pid +else + qemu_pid="" + echo Monitoring qemu job at yet-as-unknown pid +fi while : do + if test -z "$qemu_pid" -a -s "$resdir/qemu_pid" + then + qemu_pid=`cat "$resdir/qemu_pid"` + fi kruntime=`awk 'BEGIN { print systime() - '"$kstarttime"' }' < /dev/null` - if kill -0 $qemu_pid > /dev/null 2>&1 + if test -z "$qemu_pid" || kill -0 "$qemu_pid" > /dev/null 2>&1 then if test $kruntime -ge $seconds then @@ -195,12 +206,16 @@ do ps -fp $killpid >> $resdir/Warnings 2>&1 fi else - echo ' ---' `date`: Kernel done + echo ' ---' `date`: "Kernel done" fi break fi done -if test $commandcompleted -eq 0 +if test -z "$qemu_pid" -a -s "$resdir/qemu_pid" +then + qemu_pid=`cat "$resdir/qemu_pid"` +fi +if test $commandcompleted -eq 0 -a -n "$qemu_pid" then echo Grace period for qemu job at pid $qemu_pid while : @@ -220,6 +235,9 @@ then fi sleep 1 done +elif test -z "$qemu_pid" +then + echo Unknown PID, cannot kill qemu command fi parse-torture.sh $resdir/console.log $title From 480b1eb659f65be8ed039f1a9db3f762c41c9770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:50:38 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 50/56] rcutorture: Convert test duration to seconds early This commit converts test duration from minutes to seconds early on in order to prepare for upcoming OS-jitter-injection changes. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh | 5 ++--- tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh index 2eb8fefbe7d9..73a265668421 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ # Execute this in the source tree. Do not run it as a background task # because qemu does not seem to like that much. # -# Usage: kvm-test-1-run.sh config builddir resdir minutes qemu-args boot_args +# Usage: kvm-test-1-run.sh config builddir resdir seconds qemu-args boot_args # # qemu-args defaults to "-enable-kvm -soundhw pcspk -nographic", along with # arguments specifying the number of CPUs and other @@ -123,8 +123,7 @@ while test -f $builddir.ready do sleep 1 done -minutes=$4 -seconds=$(($minutes * 60)) +seconds=$4 qemu_args=$5 boot_args=$6 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh index c33cb582b3dc..704e219f67a7 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ T=/tmp/kvm.sh.$$ trap 'rm -rf $T' 0 mkdir $T -dur=30 +dur=$((30*60)) dryrun="" KVM="`pwd`/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture"; export KVM PATH=${KVM}/bin:$PATH; export PATH @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ do ;; --duration) checkarg --duration "(minutes)" $# "$2" '^[0-9]*$' '^error' - dur=$2 + dur=$(($2*60)) shift ;; --interactive) From 5c1458478c49b905652fc002708d09369763f58f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:49:24 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 51/56] documentation: Add documentation for RCU's major data structures This commit adds documentation for RCU's major data structures, including rcu_state, rcu_node, rcu_data, rcu_dynticks, and rcu_head. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCU.svg | 474 ++++++ .../Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBH.svg | 499 ++++++ .../BigTreeClassicRCUBHdyntick.svg | 695 +++++++++ .../BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntick.svg | 741 +++++++++ .../BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntickCB.svg | 858 +++++++++++ .../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html | 1333 +++++++++++++++++ .../Data-Structures/HugeTreeClassicRCU.svg | 939 ++++++++++++ .../RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeLevel.svg | 828 ++++++++++ .../Design/Data-Structures/TreeMapping.svg | 305 ++++ .../Data-Structures/TreeMappingLevel.svg | 380 +++++ .../RCU/Design/Data-Structures/blkd_task.svg | 843 +++++++++++ .../RCU/Design/Data-Structures/nxtlist.svg | 396 +++++ 12 files changed, 8291 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCU.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBH.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBHdyntick.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntick.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntickCB.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/HugeTreeClassicRCU.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeLevel.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMapping.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMappingLevel.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/blkd_task.svg create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/nxtlist.svg diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCU.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCU.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..727e270b11e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCU.svg @@ -0,0 +1,474 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 0 + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 15 + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 1007 + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 1023 + + struct rcu_state + + struct + + rcu_node + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_node + + + + + + + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBH.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBH.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..9bbb1944f962 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBH.svg @@ -0,0 +1,499 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + rcu_bh + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct rcu_state + + rcu_sched + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBHdyntick.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBHdyntick.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..21ba7823479d --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreeClassicRCUBHdyntick.svg @@ -0,0 +1,695 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + rcu_bh + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct rcu_state + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + rcu_sched + + + + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntick.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntick.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..15adcac036c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntick.svg @@ -0,0 +1,741 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + rcu_bh + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct rcu_state + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + rcu_preempt + + rcu_sched + + + + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntickCB.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntickCB.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..bbc3801470d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntickCB.svg @@ -0,0 +1,858 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + struct + + rcu_head + + struct + + rcu_head + + struct + + rcu_head + + rcu_sched + + rcu_bh + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct rcu_state + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + rcu_preempt + + + + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..7eb47ac25ad7 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html @@ -0,0 +1,1333 @@ + + + A Tour Through TREE_RCU's Data Structures [LWN.net] + + +

    January 27, 2016

    +

    This article was contributed by Paul E. McKenney

    + +

    Introduction

    + +This document describes RCU's major data structures and their relationship +to each other. + +
      +
    1. + Data-Structure Relationships +
    2. + The rcu_state Structure +
    3. + The rcu_node Structure +
    4. + The rcu_data Structure +
    5. + The rcu_dynticks Structure +
    6. + The rcu_head Structure +
    7. + RCU-Specific Fields in the task_struct Structure +
    8. + Accessor Functions +
    + +At the end we have the +answers to the quick quizzes. + +

    Data-Structure Relationships

    + +

    RCU is for all intents and purposes a large state machine, and its +data structures maintain the state in such a way as to allow RCU readers +to execute extremely quickly, while also processing the RCU grace periods +requested by updaters in an efficient and extremely scalable fashion. +The efficiency and scalability of RCU updaters is provided primarily +by a combining tree, as shown below: + +

    BigTreeClassicRCU.svg + +

    This diagram shows an enclosing rcu_state structure +containing a tree of rcu_node structures. +Each leaf node of the rcu_node tree has up to 16 +rcu_data structures associated with it, so that there +are NR_CPUS number of rcu_data structures, +one for each possible CPU. +This structure is adjusted at boot time, if needed, to handle the +common case where nr_cpu_ids is much less than +NR_CPUs. +For example, a number of Linux distributions set NR_CPUs=4096, +which results in a three-level rcu_node tree. +If the actual hardware has only 16 CPUs, RCU will adjust itself +at boot time, resulting in an rcu_node tree with only a single node. + +

    The purpose of this combining tree is to allow per-CPU events +such as quiescent states, dyntick-idle transitions, +and CPU hotplug operations to be processed efficiently +and scalably. +Quiescent states are recorded by the per-CPU rcu_data structures, +and other events are recorded by the leaf-level rcu_node +structures. +All of these events are combined at each level of the tree until finally +grace periods are completed at the tree's root rcu_node +structure. +A grace period can be completed at the root once every CPU +(or, in the case of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, task) +has passed through a quiescent state. +Once a grace period has completed, record of that fact is propagated +back down the tree. + +

    As can be seen from the diagram, on a 64-bit system +a two-level tree with 64 leaves can accommodate 1,024 CPUs, with a fanout +of 64 at the root and a fanout of 16 at the leaves. + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Why isn't the fanout at the leaves also 64? +
    Answer:
    + Because there are more types of events that affect the leaf-level + rcu_node structures than further up the tree. + Therefore, if the leaf rcu_node structures have fanout of + 64, the contention on these structures' ->structures + becomes excessive. + Experimentation on a wide variety of systems has shown that a fanout + of 16 works well for the leaves of the rcu_node tree. + + +

    Of course, further experience with + systems having hundreds or thousands of CPUs may demonstrate + that the fanout for the non-leaf rcu_node structures + must also be reduced. + Such reduction can be easily carried out when and if it proves + necessary. + In the meantime, if you are using such a system and running into + contention problems on the non-leaf rcu_node structures, + you may use the CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT kernel configuration + parameter to reduce the non-leaf fanout as needed. + + +

    Kernels built for systems with + strong NUMA characteristics might also need to adjust + CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT so that the domains of the + rcu_node structures align with hardware boundaries. + However, there has thus far been no need for this. +

     
    + +

    If your system has more than 1,024 CPUs (or more than 512 CPUs on +a 32-bit system), then RCU will automatically add more levels to the +tree. +For example, if you are crazy enough to build a 64-bit system with 65,536 +CPUs, RCU would configure the rcu_node tree as follows: + +

    HugeTreeClassicRCU.svg + +

    RCU currently permits up to a four-level tree, which on a 64-bit system +accommodates up to 4,194,304 CPUs, though only a mere 524,288 CPUs for +32-bit systems. +On the other hand, you can set CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT to be +as small as 2 if you wish, which would permit only 16 CPUs, which +is useful for testing. + +

    This multi-level combining tree allows us to get most of the +performance and scalability +benefits of partitioning, even though RCU grace-period detection is +inherently a global operation. +The trick here is that only the last CPU to report a quiescent state +into a given rcu_node structure need advance to the rcu_node +structure at the next level up the tree. +This means that at the leaf-level rcu_node structure, only +one access out of sixteen will progress up the tree. +For the internal rcu_node structures, the situation is even +more extreme: Only one access out of sixty-four will progress up +the tree. +Because the vast majority of the CPUs do not progress up the tree, +the lock contention remains roughly constant up the tree. +No matter how many CPUs there are in the system, at most 64 quiescent-state +reports per grace period will progress all the way to the root +rcu_node structure, thus ensuring that the lock contention +on that root rcu_node structure remains acceptably low. + +

    In effect, the combining tree acts like a big shock absorber, +keeping lock contention under control at all tree levels regardless +of the level of loading on the system. + +

    The Linux kernel actually supports multiple flavors of RCU +running concurrently, so RCU builds separate data structures for each +flavor. +For example, for CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y kernels, RCU provides +rcu_sched and rcu_bh, as shown below: + +

    BigTreeClassicRCUBH.svg + +

    Energy efficiency is increasingly important, and for that +reason the Linux kernel provides CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE, which +turns off the scheduling-clock interrupts on idle CPUs, which in +turn allows those CPUs to attain deeper sleep states and to consume +less energy. +CPUs whose scheduling-clock interrupts have been turned off are +said to be in dyntick-idle mode. +RCU must handle dyntick-idle CPUs specially +because RCU would otherwise wake up each CPU on every grace period, +which would defeat the whole purpose of CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE. +RCU uses the rcu_dynticks structure to track +which CPUs are in dyntick idle mode, as shown below: + +

    BigTreeClassicRCUBHdyntick.svg + +

    However, if a CPU is in dyntick-idle mode, it is in that mode +for all flavors of RCU. +Therefore, a single rcu_dynticks structure is allocated per +CPU, and all of a given CPU's rcu_data structures share +that rcu_dynticks, as shown in the figure. + +

    Kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU support +rcu_preempt in addition to rcu_sched and rcu_bh, as shown below: + +

    BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntick.svg + +

    RCU updaters wait for normal grace periods by registering +RCU callbacks, either directly via call_rcu() and +friends (namely call_rcu_bh() and call_rcu_sched()), +there being a separate interface per flavor of RCU) +or indirectly via synchronize_rcu() and friends. +RCU callbacks are represented by rcu_head structures, +which are queued on rcu_data structures while they are +waiting for a grace period to elapse, as shown in the following figure: + +

    BigTreePreemptRCUBHdyntickCB.svg + +

    This figure shows how TREE_RCU's and +PREEMPT_RCU's major data structures are related. +Lesser data structures will be introduced with the algorithms that +make use of them. + +

    Note that each of the data structures in the above figure has +its own synchronization: + +

      +
    1. Each rcu_state structures has a lock and a mutex, + and some fields are protected by the corresponding root + rcu_node structure's lock. +
    2. Each rcu_node structure has a spinlock. +
    3. The fields in rcu_data are private to the corresponding + CPU, although a few can be read and written by other CPUs. +
    4. Similarly, the fields in rcu_dynticks are private + to the corresponding CPU, although a few can be read by + other CPUs. +
    + +

    It is important to note that different data structures can have +very different ideas about the state of RCU at any given time. +For but one example, awareness of the start or end of a given RCU +grace period propagates slowly through the data structures. +This slow propagation is absolutely necessary for RCU to have good +read-side performance. +If this balkanized implementation seems foreign to you, one useful +trick is to consider each instance of these data structures to be +a different person, each having the usual slightly different +view of reality. + +

    The general role of each of these data structures is as +follows: + +

      +
    1. rcu_state: + This structure forms the interconnection between the + rcu_node and rcu_data structures, + tracks grace periods, serves as short-term repository + for callbacks orphaned by CPU-hotplug events, + maintains rcu_barrier() state, + tracks expedited grace-period state, + and maintains state used to force quiescent states when + grace periods extend too long, +
    2. rcu_node: This structure forms the combining + tree that propagates quiescent-state + information from the leaves to the root, and also propagates + grace-period information from the root to the leaves. + It provides local copies of the grace-period state in order + to allow this information to be accessed in a synchronized + manner without suffering the scalability limitations that + would otherwise be imposed by global locking. + In CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU kernels, it manages the lists + of tasks that have blocked while in their current + RCU read-side critical section. + In CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU with + CONFIG_RCU_BOOST, it manages the + per-rcu_node priority-boosting + kernel threads (kthreads) and state. + Finally, it records CPU-hotplug state in order to determine + which CPUs should be ignored during a given grace period. +
    3. rcu_data: This per-CPU structure is the + focus of quiescent-state detection and RCU callback queuing. + It also tracks its relationship to the corresponding leaf + rcu_node structure to allow more-efficient + propagation of quiescent states up the rcu_node + combining tree. + Like the rcu_node structure, it provides a local + copy of the grace-period information to allow for-free + synchronized + access to this information from the corresponding CPU. + Finally, this structure records past dyntick-idle state + for the corresponding CPU and also tracks statistics. +
    4. rcu_dynticks: + This per-CPU structure tracks the current dyntick-idle + state for the corresponding CPU. + Unlike the other three structures, the rcu_dynticks + structure is not replicated per RCU flavor. +
    5. rcu_head: + This structure represents RCU callbacks, and is the + only structure allocated and managed by RCU users. + The rcu_head structure is normally embedded + within the RCU-protected data structure. +
    + +

    If all you wanted from this article was a general notion of how +RCU's data structures are related, you are done. +Otherwise, each of the following sections give more details on +the rcu_state, rcu_node, rcu_data, +and rcu_dynticks data structures. + +

    +The rcu_state Structure

    + +

    The rcu_state structure is the base structure that +represents a flavor of RCU. +This structure forms the interconnection between the +rcu_node and rcu_data structures, +tracks grace periods, contains the lock used to +synchronize with CPU-hotplug events, +and maintains state used to force quiescent states when +grace periods extend too long, + +

    A few of the rcu_state structure's fields are discussed, +singly and in groups, in the following sections. +The more specialized fields are covered in the discussion of their +use. + +

    Relationship to rcu_node and rcu_data Structures
    + +This portion of the rcu_state structure is declared +as follows: + +
    +  1   struct rcu_node node[NUM_RCU_NODES];
+  2   struct rcu_node *level[NUM_RCU_LVLS + 1];
+  3   struct rcu_data __percpu *rda;
+
    + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Wait a minute! + You said that the rcu_node structures formed a tree, + but they are declared as a flat array! + What gives? +
    Answer:
    + The tree is laid out in the array. + The first node In the array is the head, the next set of nodes in the + array are children of the head node, and so on until the last set of + nodes in the array are the leaves. + + +

    See the following diagrams to see how + this works. +

     
    + +

    The rcu_node tree is embedded into the +->node[] array as shown in the following figure: + +

    TreeMapping.svg + +

    One interesting consequence of this mapping is that a +breadth-first traversal of the tree is implemented as a simple +linear scan of the array, which is in fact what the +rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first() macro does. +This macro is used at the beginning and ends of grace periods. + +

    Each entry of the ->level array references +the first rcu_node structure on the corresponding level +of the tree, for example, as shown below: + +

    TreeMappingLevel.svg + +

    The zeroth element of the array references the root +rcu_node structure, the first element references the +first child of the root rcu_node, and finally the second +element references the first leaf rcu_node structure. + +

    For whatever it is worth, if you draw the tree to be tree-shaped +rather than array-shaped, it is easy to draw a planar representation: + +

    TreeLevel.svg + +

    Finally, the ->rda field references a per-CPU +pointer to the corresponding CPU's rcu_data structure. + +

    All of these fields are constant once initialization is complete, +and therefore need no protection. + +

    Grace-Period Tracking
    + +

    This portion of the rcu_state structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   unsigned long gpnum;
+  2   unsigned long completed;
+
    + +

    RCU grace periods are numbered, and +the ->gpnum field contains the number of the grace +period that started most recently. +The ->completed field contains the number of the +grace period that completed most recently. +If the two fields are equal, the RCU grace period that most recently +started has already completed, and therefore the corresponding +flavor of RCU is idle. +If ->gpnum is one greater than ->completed, +then ->gpnum gives the number of the current RCU +grace period, which has not yet completed. +Any other combination of values indicates that something is broken. +These two fields are protected by the root rcu_node's +->lock field. + +

    There are ->gpnum and ->completed fields +in the rcu_node and rcu_data structures +as well. +The fields in the rcu_state structure represent the +most current values, and those of the other structures are compared +in order to detect the start of a new grace period in a distributed +fashion. +The values flow from rcu_state to rcu_node +(down the tree from the root to the leaves) to rcu_data. + +

    Miscellaneous
    + +

    This portion of the rcu_state structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   unsigned long gp_max;
+  2   char abbr;
+  3   char *name;
+
    + +

    The ->gp_max field tracks the duration of the longest +grace period in jiffies. +It is protected by the root rcu_node's ->lock. + +

    The ->name field points to the name of the RCU flavor +(for example, “rcu_sched”), and is constant. +The ->abbr field contains a one-character abbreviation, +for example, “s” for RCU-sched. + +

    +The rcu_node Structure

    + +

    The rcu_node structures form the combining +tree that propagates quiescent-state +information from the leaves to the root and also that propagates +grace-period information from the root down to the leaves. +They provides local copies of the grace-period state in order +to allow this information to be accessed in a synchronized +manner without suffering the scalability limitations that +would otherwise be imposed by global locking. +In CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU kernels, they manage the lists +of tasks that have blocked while in their current +RCU read-side critical section. +In CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU with +CONFIG_RCU_BOOST, they manage the +per-rcu_node priority-boosting +kernel threads (kthreads) and state. +Finally, they record CPU-hotplug state in order to determine +which CPUs should be ignored during a given grace period. + +

    The rcu_node structure's fields are discussed, +singly and in groups, in the following sections. + +

    Connection to Combining Tree
    + +

    This portion of the rcu_node structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   struct rcu_node *parent;
+  2   u8 level;
+  3   u8 grpnum;
+  4   unsigned long grpmask;
+  5   int grplo;
+  6   int grphi;
+
    + +

    The ->parent pointer references the rcu_node +one level up in the tree, and is NULL for the root +rcu_node. +The RCU implementation makes heavy use of this field to push quiescent +states up the tree. +The ->level field gives the level in the tree, with +the root being at level zero, its children at level one, and so on. +The ->grpnum field gives this node's position within +the children of its parent, so this number can range between 0 and 31 +on 32-bit systems and between 0 and 63 on 64-bit systems. +The ->level and ->grpnum fields are +used only during initialization and for tracing. +The ->grpmask field is the bitmask counterpart of +->grpnum, and therefore always has exactly one bit set. +This mask is used to clear the bit corresponding to this rcu_node +structure in its parent's bitmasks, which are described later. +Finally, the ->grplo and ->grphi fields +contain the lowest and highest numbered CPU served by this +rcu_node structure, respectively. + +

    All of these fields are constant, and thus do not require any +synchronization. + +

    Synchronization
    + +

    This field of the rcu_node structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   raw_spinlock_t lock;
+
    + +

    This field is used to protect the remaining fields in this structure, +unless otherwise stated. +That said, all of the fields in this structure can be accessed without +locking for tracing purposes. +Yes, this can result in confusing traces, but better some tracing confusion +than to be heisenbugged out of existence. + +

    Grace-Period Tracking
    + +

    This portion of the rcu_node structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   unsigned long gpnum;
+  2   unsigned long completed;
+
    + +

    These fields are the counterparts of the fields of the same name in +the rcu_state structure. +They each may lag up to one behind their rcu_state +counterparts. +If a given rcu_node structure's ->gpnum and +->complete fields are equal, then this rcu_node +structure believes that RCU is idle. +Otherwise, as with the rcu_state structure, +the ->gpnum field will be one greater than the +->complete fields, with ->gpnum +indicating which grace period this rcu_node believes +is still being waited for. + +

    The >gpnum field of each rcu_node +structure is updated at the beginning +of each grace period, and the ->completed fields are +updated at the end of each grace period. + +

    Quiescent-State Tracking
    + +

    These fields manage the propagation of quiescent states up the +combining tree. + +

    This portion of the rcu_node structure has fields +as follows: + +

    +  1   unsigned long qsmask;
+  2   unsigned long expmask;
+  3   unsigned long qsmaskinit;
+  4   unsigned long expmaskinit;
+
    + +

    The ->qsmask field tracks which of this +rcu_node structure's children still need to report +quiescent states for the current normal grace period. +Such children will have a value of 1 in their corresponding bit. +Note that the leaf rcu_node structures should be +thought of as having rcu_data structures as their +children. +Similarly, the ->expmask field tracks which +of this rcu_node structure's children still need to report +quiescent states for the current expedited grace period. +An expedited grace period has +the same conceptual properties as a normal grace period, but the +expedited implementation accepts extreme CPU overhead to obtain +much lower grace-period latency, for example, consuming a few +tens of microseconds worth of CPU time to reduce grace-period +duration from milliseconds to tens of microseconds. +The ->qsmaskinit field tracks which of this +rcu_node structure's children cover for at least +one online CPU. +This mask is used to initialize ->qsmask, +and ->expmaskinit is used to initialize +->expmask and the beginning of the +normal and expedited grace periods, respectively. + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Why are these bitmasks protected by locking? + Come on, haven't you heard of atomic instructions??? +
    Answer:
    + Lockless grace-period computation! Such a tantalizing possibility! + + +

    But consider the following sequence of events: + + +

      +
    1. CPU 0 has been in dyntick-idle + mode for quite some time. + When it wakes up, it notices that the current RCU + grace period needs it to report in, so it sets a + flag where the scheduling clock interrupt will find it. +

      +

    2. Meanwhile, CPU 1 is running + force_quiescent_state(), + and notices that CPU 0 has been in dyntick idle mode, + which qualifies as an extended quiescent state. +

      +

    3. CPU 0's scheduling clock + interrupt fires in the + middle of an RCU read-side critical section, and notices + that the RCU core needs something, so commences RCU softirq + processing. + +

      +

    4. CPU 0's softirq handler + executes and is just about ready + to report its quiescent state up the rcu_node + tree. +

      +

    5. But CPU 1 beats it to the punch, + completing the current + grace period and starting a new one. +

      +

    6. CPU 0 now reports its quiescent + state for the wrong + grace period. + That grace period might now end before the RCU read-side + critical section. + If that happens, disaster will ensue. + +
    + +

    So the locking is absolutely required in + order to coordinate + clearing of the bits with the grace-period numbers in + ->gpnum and ->completed. +

     
    + +

    Blocked-Task Management
    + +

    PREEMPT_RCU allows tasks to be preempted in the +midst of their RCU read-side critical sections, and these tasks +must be tracked explicitly. +The details of exactly why and how they are tracked will be covered +in a separate article on RCU read-side processing. +For now, it is enough to know that the rcu_node +structure tracks them. + +

    +  1   struct list_head blkd_tasks;
+  2   struct list_head *gp_tasks;
+  3   struct list_head *exp_tasks;
+  4   bool wait_blkd_tasks;
+
    + +

    The ->blkd_tasks field is a list header for +the list of blocked and preempted tasks. +As tasks undergo context switches within RCU read-side critical +sections, their task_struct structures are enqueued +(via the task_struct's ->rcu_node_entry +field) onto the head of the ->blkd_tasks list for the +leaf rcu_node structure corresponding to the CPU +on which the outgoing context switch executed. +As these tasks later exit their RCU read-side critical sections, +they remove themselves from the list. +This list is therefore in reverse time order, so that if one of the tasks +is blocking the current grace period, all subsequent tasks must +also be blocking that same grace period. +Therefore, a single pointer into this list suffices to track +all tasks blocking a given grace period. +That pointer is stored in ->gp_tasks for normal +grace periods and in ->exp_tasks for expedited +grace periods. +These last two fields are NULL if either there is +no grace period in flight or if there are no blocked tasks +preventing that grace period from completing. +If either of these two pointers is referencing a task that +removes itself from the ->blkd_tasks list, +then that task must advance the pointer to the next task on +the list, or set the pointer to NULL if there +are no subsequent tasks on the list. + +

    For example, suppose that tasks T1, T2, and T3 are +all hard-affinitied to the largest-numbered CPU in the system. +Then if task T1 blocked in an RCU read-side +critical section, then an expedited grace period started, +then task T2 blocked in an RCU read-side critical section, +then a normal grace period started, and finally task 3 blocked +in an RCU read-side critical section, then the state of the +last leaf rcu_node structure's blocked-task list +would be as shown below: + +

    blkd_task.svg + +

    Task T1 is blocking both grace periods, task T2 is +blocking only the normal grace period, and task T3 is blocking +neither grace period. +Note that these tasks will not remove themselves from this list +immediately upon resuming execution. +They will instead remain on the list until they execute the outermost +rcu_read_unlock() that ends their RCU read-side critical +section. + +

    +The ->wait_blkd_tasks field indicates whether or not +the current grace period is waiting on a blocked task. + +

    Sizing the rcu_node Array
    + +

    The rcu_node array is sized via a series of +C-preprocessor expressions as follows: + +

    + 1 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT
+ 2 #define RCU_FANOUT CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT
+ 3 #else
+ 4 # ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
+ 5 # define RCU_FANOUT 64
+ 6 # else
+ 7 # define RCU_FANOUT 32
+ 8 # endif
+ 9 #endif
+10
+11 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF
+12 #define RCU_FANOUT_LEAF CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF
+13 #else
+14 # ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
+15 # define RCU_FANOUT_LEAF 64
+16 # else
+17 # define RCU_FANOUT_LEAF 32
+18 # endif
+19 #endif
+20
+21 #define RCU_FANOUT_1        (RCU_FANOUT_LEAF)
+22 #define RCU_FANOUT_2        (RCU_FANOUT_1 * RCU_FANOUT)
+23 #define RCU_FANOUT_3        (RCU_FANOUT_2 * RCU_FANOUT)
+24 #define RCU_FANOUT_4        (RCU_FANOUT_3 * RCU_FANOUT)
+25
+26 #if NR_CPUS <= RCU_FANOUT_1
+27 #  define RCU_NUM_LVLS        1
+28 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_0        1
+29 #  define NUM_RCU_NODES        NUM_RCU_LVL_0
+30 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT    { NUM_RCU_LVL_0 }
+31 #  define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT  { "rcu_node_0" }
+32 #  define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_fqs_0" }
+33 #  define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_exp_0" }
+34 #elif NR_CPUS <= RCU_FANOUT_2
+35 #  define RCU_NUM_LVLS        2
+36 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_0        1
+37 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_1        DIV_ROUND_UP(NR_CPUS, RCU_FANOUT_1)
+38 #  define NUM_RCU_NODES        (NUM_RCU_LVL_0 + NUM_RCU_LVL_1)
+39 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT    { NUM_RCU_LVL_0, NUM_RCU_LVL_1 }
+40 #  define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT  { "rcu_node_0", "rcu_node_1" }
+41 #  define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_fqs_0", "rcu_node_fqs_1" }
+42 #  define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_exp_0", "rcu_node_exp_1" }
+43 #elif NR_CPUS <= RCU_FANOUT_3
+44 #  define RCU_NUM_LVLS        3
+45 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_0        1
+46 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_1        DIV_ROUND_UP(NR_CPUS, RCU_FANOUT_2)
+47 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_2        DIV_ROUND_UP(NR_CPUS, RCU_FANOUT_1)
+48 #  define NUM_RCU_NODES        (NUM_RCU_LVL_0 + NUM_RCU_LVL_1 + NUM_RCU_LVL_2)
+49 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT    { NUM_RCU_LVL_0, NUM_RCU_LVL_1, NUM_RCU_LVL_2 }
+50 #  define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT  { "rcu_node_0", "rcu_node_1", "rcu_node_2" }
+51 #  define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_fqs_0", "rcu_node_fqs_1", "rcu_node_fqs_2" }
+52 #  define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_exp_0", "rcu_node_exp_1", "rcu_node_exp_2" }
+53 #elif NR_CPUS <= RCU_FANOUT_4
+54 #  define RCU_NUM_LVLS        4
+55 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_0        1
+56 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_1        DIV_ROUND_UP(NR_CPUS, RCU_FANOUT_3)
+57 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_2        DIV_ROUND_UP(NR_CPUS, RCU_FANOUT_2)
+58 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_3        DIV_ROUND_UP(NR_CPUS, RCU_FANOUT_1)
+59 #  define NUM_RCU_NODES        (NUM_RCU_LVL_0 + NUM_RCU_LVL_1 + NUM_RCU_LVL_2 + NUM_RCU_LVL_3)
+60 #  define NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT    { NUM_RCU_LVL_0, NUM_RCU_LVL_1, NUM_RCU_LVL_2, NUM_RCU_LVL_3 }
+61 #  define RCU_NODE_NAME_INIT  { "rcu_node_0", "rcu_node_1", "rcu_node_2", "rcu_node_3" }
+62 #  define RCU_FQS_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_fqs_0", "rcu_node_fqs_1", "rcu_node_fqs_2", "rcu_node_fqs_3" }
+63 #  define RCU_EXP_NAME_INIT   { "rcu_node_exp_0", "rcu_node_exp_1", "rcu_node_exp_2", "rcu_node_exp_3" }
+64 #else
+65 # error "CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT insufficient for NR_CPUS"
+66 #endif
+
    + +

    The maximum number of levels in the rcu_node structure +is currently limited to four, as specified by lines 21-24 +and the structure of the subsequent “if” statement. +For 32-bit systems, this allows 16*32*32*32=524,288 CPUs, which +should be sufficient for the next few years at least. +For 64-bit systems, 16*64*64*64=4,194,304 CPUs is allowed, which +should see us through the next decade or so. +This four-level tree also allows kernels built with +CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=8 to support up to 4096 CPUs, +which might be useful in very large systems having eight CPUs per +socket (but please note that no one has yet shown any measurable +performance degradation due to misaligned socket and rcu_node +boundaries). +In addition, building kernels with a full four levels of rcu_node +tree permits better testing of RCU's combining-tree code. + +

    The RCU_FANOUT symbol controls how many children +are permitted at each non-leaf level of the rcu_node tree. +If the CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT Kconfig option is not specified, +it is set based on the word size of the system, which is also +the Kconfig default. + +

    The RCU_FANOUT_LEAF symbol controls how many CPUs are +handled by each leaf rcu_node structure. +Experience has shown that allowing a given leaf rcu_node +structure to handle 64 CPUs, as permitted by the number of bits in +the ->qsmask field on a 64-bit system, results in +excessive contention for the leaf rcu_node structures' +->lock fields. +The number of CPUs per leaf rcu_node structure is therefore +limited to 16 given the default value of CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF. +If CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF is unspecified, the value +selected is based on the word size of the system, just as for +CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT. +Lines 11-19 perform this computation. + +

    Lines 21-24 compute the maximum number of CPUs supported by +a single-level (which contains a single rcu_node structure), +two-level, three-level, and four-level rcu_node tree, +respectively, given the fanout specified by RCU_FANOUT +and RCU_FANOUT_LEAF. +These numbers of CPUs are retained in the +RCU_FANOUT_1, +RCU_FANOUT_2, +RCU_FANOUT_3, and +RCU_FANOUT_4 +C-preprocessor variables, respectively. + +

    These variables are used to control the C-preprocessor #if +statement spanning lines 26-66 that computes the number of +rcu_node structures required for each level of the tree, +as well as the number of levels required. +The number of levels is placed in the NUM_RCU_LVLS +C-preprocessor variable by lines 27, 35, 44, and 54. +The number of rcu_node structures for the topmost level +of the tree is always exactly one, and this value is unconditionally +placed into NUM_RCU_LVL_0 by lines 28, 36, 45, and 55. +The rest of the levels (if any) of the rcu_node tree +are computed by dividing the maximum number of CPUs by the +fanout supported by the number of levels from the current level down, +rounding up. This computation is performed by lines 37, +46-47, and 56-58. +Lines 31-33, 40-42, 50-52, and 62-63 create initializers +for lockdep lock-class names. +Finally, lines 64-66 produce an error if the maximum number of +CPUs is too large for the specified fanout. + +

    +The rcu_data Structure

    + +

    The rcu_data maintains the per-CPU state for the +corresponding flavor of RCU. +The fields in this structure may be accessed only from the corresponding +CPU (and from tracing) unless otherwise stated. +This structure is the +focus of quiescent-state detection and RCU callback queuing. +It also tracks its relationship to the corresponding leaf +rcu_node structure to allow more-efficient +propagation of quiescent states up the rcu_node +combining tree. +Like the rcu_node structure, it provides a local +copy of the grace-period information to allow for-free +synchronized +access to this information from the corresponding CPU. +Finally, this structure records past dyntick-idle state +for the corresponding CPU and also tracks statistics. + +

    The rcu_data structure's fields are discussed, +singly and in groups, in the following sections. + +

    Connection to Other Data Structures
    + +

    This portion of the rcu_data structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   int cpu;
+  2   struct rcu_state *rsp;
+  3   struct rcu_node *mynode;
+  4   struct rcu_dynticks *dynticks;
+  5   unsigned long grpmask;
+  6   bool beenonline;
+
    + +

    The ->cpu field contains the number of the +corresponding CPU, the ->rsp pointer references +the corresponding rcu_state structure (and is most frequently +used to locate the name of the corresponding flavor of RCU for tracing), +and the ->mynode field references the corresponding +rcu_node structure. +The ->mynode is used to propagate quiescent states +up the combining tree. +

    The ->dynticks pointer references the +rcu_dynticks structure corresponding to this +CPU. +Recall that a single per-CPU instance of the rcu_dynticks +structure is shared among all flavors of RCU. +These first four fields are constant and therefore require not +synchronization. + +

    The ->grpmask field indicates the bit in +the ->mynode->qsmask corresponding to this +rcu_data structure, and is also used when propagating +quiescent states. +The ->beenonline flag is set whenever the corresponding +CPU comes online, which means that the debugfs tracing need not dump +out any rcu_data structure for which this flag is not set. + +

    Quiescent-State and Grace-Period Tracking
    + +

    This portion of the rcu_data structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   unsigned long completed;
+  2   unsigned long gpnum;
+  3   bool cpu_no_qs;
+  4   bool core_needs_qs;
+  5   bool gpwrap;
+  6   unsigned long rcu_qs_ctr_snap;
+
    + +

    The completed and gpnum +fields are the counterparts of the fields of the same name +in the rcu_state and rcu_node structures. +They may each lag up to one behind their rcu_node +counterparts, but in CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE and +CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL kernels can lag +arbitrarily far behind for CPUs in dyntick-idle mode (but these counters +will catch up upon exit from dyntick-idle mode). +If a given rcu_data structure's ->gpnum and +->complete fields are equal, then this rcu_data +structure believes that RCU is idle. +Otherwise, as with the rcu_state and rcu_node +structure, +the ->gpnum field will be one greater than the +->complete fields, with ->gpnum +indicating which grace period this rcu_data believes +is still being waited for. + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + All this replication of the grace period numbers can only cause + massive confusion. + Why not just keep a global pair of counters and be done with it??? +
    Answer:
    + Because if there was only a single global pair of grace-period + numbers, there would need to be a single global lock to allow + safely accessing and updating them. + And if we are not going to have a single global lock, we need + to carefully manage the numbers on a per-node basis. + Recall from the answer to a previous Quick Quiz that the consequences + of applying a previously sampled quiescent state to the wrong + grace period are quite severe. +
     
    + +

    The ->cpu_no_qs flag indicates that the +CPU has not yet passed through a quiescent state, +while the ->core_needs_qs flag indicates that the +RCU core needs a quiescent state from the corresponding CPU. +The ->gpwrap field indicates that the corresponding +CPU has remained idle for so long that the completed +and gpnum counters are in danger of overflow, which +will cause the CPU to disregard the values of its counters on +its next exit from idle. +Finally, the rcu_qs_ctr_snap field is used to detect +cases where a given operation has resulted in a quiescent state +for all flavors of RCU, for example, cond_resched_rcu_qs(). + +

    RCU Callback Handling
    + +

    In the absence of CPU-hotplug events, RCU callbacks are invoked by +the same CPU that registered them. +This is strictly a cache-locality optimization: callbacks can and +do get invoked on CPUs other than the one that registered them. +After all, if the CPU that registered a given callback has gone +offline before the callback can be invoked, there really is no other +choice. + +

    This portion of the rcu_data structure is declared +as follows: + +

    + 1 struct rcu_head *nxtlist;
+ 2 struct rcu_head **nxttail[RCU_NEXT_SIZE];
+ 3 unsigned long nxtcompleted[RCU_NEXT_SIZE];
+ 4 long qlen_lazy;
+ 5 long qlen;
+ 6 long qlen_last_fqs_check;
+ 7 unsigned long n_force_qs_snap;
+ 8 unsigned long n_cbs_invoked;
+ 9 unsigned long n_cbs_orphaned;
+10 unsigned long n_cbs_adopted;
+11 long blimit;
+
    + +

    The ->nxtlist pointer and the +->nxttail[] array form a four-segment list with +older callbacks near the head and newer ones near the tail. +Each segment contains callbacks with the corresponding relationship +to the current grace period. +The pointer out of the end of each of the four segments is referenced +by the element of the ->nxttail[] array indexed by +RCU_DONE_TAIL (for callbacks handled by a prior grace period), +RCU_WAIT_TAIL (for callbacks waiting on the current grace period), +RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL (for callbacks that will wait on the next +grace period), and +RCU_NEXT_TAIL (for callbacks that are not yet associated +with a specific grace period) +respectively, as shown in the following figure. + +

    nxtlist.svg + +

    In this figure, the ->nxtlist pointer references the +first +RCU callback in the list. +The ->nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL] array element references +the ->nxtlist pointer itself, indicating that none +of the callbacks is ready to invoke. +The ->nxttail[RCU_WAIT_TAIL] array element references callback +CB 2's ->next pointer, which indicates that +CB 1 and CB 2 are both waiting on the current grace period. +The ->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL] array element +references the same RCU callback that ->nxttail[RCU_WAIT_TAIL] +does, which indicates that there are no callbacks waiting on the next +RCU grace period. +The ->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] array element references +CB 4's ->next pointer, indicating that all the +remaining RCU callbacks have not yet been assigned to an RCU grace +period. +Note that the ->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] array element +always references the last RCU callback's ->next pointer +unless the callback list is empty, in which case it references +the ->nxtlist pointer. + +

    CPUs advance their callbacks from the +RCU_NEXT_TAIL to the RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL to the +RCU_WAIT_TAIL to the RCU_DONE_TAIL list segments +as grace periods advance. +The CPU advances the callbacks in its rcu_data structure +whenever it notices that another RCU grace period has completed. +The CPU detects the completion of an RCU grace period by noticing +that the value of its rcu_data structure's +->completed field differs from that of its leaf +rcu_node structure. +Recall that each rcu_node structure's +->completed field is updated at the end of each +grace period. + +

    The ->nxtcompleted[] array records grace-period +numbers corresponding to the list segments. +This allows CPUs that go idle for extended periods to determine +which of their callbacks are ready to be invoked after reawakening. + +

    The ->qlen counter contains the number of +callbacks in ->nxtlist, and the +->qlen_lazy contains the number of those callbacks that +are known to only free memory, and whose invocation can therefore +be safely deferred. +The ->qlen_last_fqs_check and +->n_force_qs_snap coordinate the forcing of quiescent +states from call_rcu() and friends when callback +lists grow excessively long. + +

    The ->n_cbs_invoked, +->n_cbs_orphaned, and ->n_cbs_adopted +fields count the number of callbacks invoked, +sent to other CPUs when this CPU goes offline, +and received from other CPUs when those other CPUs go offline. +Finally, the ->blimit counter is the maximum number of +RCU callbacks that may be invoked at a given time. + +

    Dyntick-Idle Handling
    + +

    This portion of the rcu_data structure is declared +as follows: + +

    +  1   int dynticks_snap;
+  2   unsigned long dynticks_fqs;
+
    + +The ->dynticks_snap field is used to take a snapshot +of the corresponding CPU's dyntick-idle state when forcing +quiescent states, and is therefore accessed from other CPUs. +Finally, the ->dynticks_fqs field is used to +count the number of times this CPU is determined to be in +dyntick-idle state, and is used for tracing and debugging purposes. + +

    +The rcu_dynticks Structure

    + +

    The rcu_dynticks maintains the per-CPU dyntick-idle state +for the corresponding CPU. +Unlike the other structures, rcu_dynticks is not +replicated over the different flavors of RCU. +The fields in this structure may be accessed only from the corresponding +CPU (and from tracing) unless otherwise stated. +Its fields are as follows: + +

    +  1   int dynticks_nesting;
+  2   int dynticks_nmi_nesting;
+  3   atomic_t dynticks;
+
    + +

    The ->dynticks_nesting field counts the +nesting depth of normal interrupts. +In addition, this counter is incremented when exiting dyntick-idle +mode and decremented when entering it. +This counter can therefore be thought of as counting the number +of reasons why this CPU cannot be permitted to enter dyntick-idle +mode, aside from non-maskable interrupts (NMIs). +NMIs are counted by the ->dynticks_nmi_nesting +field, except that NMIs that interrupt non-dyntick-idle execution +are not counted. + +

    Finally, the ->dynticks field counts the corresponding +CPU's transitions to and from dyntick-idle mode, so that this counter +has an even value when the CPU is in dyntick-idle mode and an odd +value otherwise. + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Why not just count all NMIs? + Wouldn't that be simpler and less error prone? +
    Answer:
    + It seems simpler only until you think hard about how to go about + updating the rcu_dynticks structure's + ->dynticks field. +
     
    + +

    Additional fields are present for some special-purpose +builds, and are discussed separately. + +

    +The rcu_head Structure

    + +

    Each rcu_head structure represents an RCU callback. +These structures are normally embedded within RCU-protected data +structures whose algorithms use asynchronous grace periods. +In contrast, when using algorithms that block waiting for RCU grace periods, +RCU users need not provide rcu_head structures. + +

    The rcu_head structure has fields as follows: + +

    +  1   struct rcu_head *next;
+  2   void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head);
+
    + +

    The ->next field is used +to link the rcu_head structures together in the +lists within the rcu_data structures. +The ->func field is a pointer to the function +to be called when the callback is ready to be invoked, and +this function is passed a pointer to the rcu_head +structure. +However, kfree_rcu() uses the ->func +field to record the offset of the rcu_head +structure within the enclosing RCU-protected data structure. + +

    Both of these fields are used internally by RCU. +From the viewpoint of RCU users, this structure is an +opaque “cookie”. + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + Given that the callback function ->func + is passed a pointer to the rcu_head structure, + how is that function supposed to find the beginning of the + enclosing RCU-protected data structure? +
    Answer:
    + In actual practice, there is a separate callback function per + type of RCU-protected data structure. + The callback function can therefore use the container_of() + macro in the Linux kernel (or other pointer-manipulation facilities + in other software environments) to find the beginning of the + enclosing structure. +
     
    + +

    +RCU-Specific Fields in the task_struct Structure

    + +

    The CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU implementation uses some +additional fields in the task_struct structure: + +

    + 1 #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
+ 2   int rcu_read_lock_nesting;
+ 3   union rcu_special rcu_read_unlock_special;
+ 4   struct list_head rcu_node_entry;
+ 5   struct rcu_node *rcu_blocked_node;
+ 6 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
+ 7 #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
+ 8   unsigned long rcu_tasks_nvcsw;
+ 9   bool rcu_tasks_holdout;
+10   struct list_head rcu_tasks_holdout_list;
+11   int rcu_tasks_idle_cpu;
+12 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU */
+
    + +

    The ->rcu_read_lock_nesting field records the +nesting level for RCU read-side critical sections, and +the ->rcu_read_unlock_special field is a bitmask +that records special conditions that require rcu_read_unlock() +to do additional work. +The ->rcu_node_entry field is used to form lists of +tasks that have blocked within preemptible-RCU read-side critical +sections and the ->rcu_blocked_node field references +the rcu_node structure whose list this task is a member of, +or NULL if it is not blocked within a preemptible-RCU +read-side critical section. + +

    The ->rcu_tasks_nvcsw field tracks the number of +voluntary context switches that this task had undergone at the +beginning of the current tasks-RCU grace period, +->rcu_tasks_holdout is set if the current tasks-RCU +grace period is waiting on this task, ->rcu_tasks_holdout_list +is a list element enqueuing this task on the holdout list, +and ->rcu_tasks_idle_cpu tracks which CPU this +idle task is running, but only if the task is currently running, +that is, if the CPU is currently idle. + +

    +Accessor Functions

    + +

    The following listing shows the +rcu_get_root(), rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first, +rcu_for_each_nonleaf_node_breadth_first(), and +rcu_for_each_leaf_node() function and macros: + +

    +  1 static struct rcu_node *rcu_get_root(struct rcu_state *rsp)
+  2 {
+  3   return &rsp->node[0];
+  4 }
+  5
+  6 #define rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) \
+  7   for ((rnp) = &(rsp)->node[0]; \
+  8        (rnp) < &(rsp)->node[NUM_RCU_NODES]; (rnp)++)
+  9
+ 10 #define rcu_for_each_nonleaf_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) \
+ 11   for ((rnp) = &(rsp)->node[0]; \
+ 12        (rnp) < (rsp)->level[NUM_RCU_LVLS - 1]; (rnp)++)
+ 13
+ 14 #define rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rsp, rnp) \
+ 15   for ((rnp) = (rsp)->level[NUM_RCU_LVLS - 1]; \
+ 16        (rnp) < &(rsp)->node[NUM_RCU_NODES]; (rnp)++)
+
    + +

    The rcu_get_root() simply returns a pointer to the +first element of the specified rcu_state structure's +->node[] array, which is the root rcu_node +structure. + +

    As noted earlier, the rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first() +macro takes advantage of the layout of the rcu_node +structures in the rcu_state structure's +->node[] array, performing a breadth-first traversal by +simply traversing the array in order. +The rcu_for_each_nonleaf_node_breadth_first() macro operates +similarly, but traverses only the first part of the array, thus excluding +the leaf rcu_node structures. +Finally, the rcu_for_each_leaf_node() macro traverses only +the last part of the array, thus traversing only the leaf +rcu_node structures. + + + + + + + + +
     
    Quick Quiz:
    + What do rcu_for_each_nonleaf_node_breadth_first() and + rcu_for_each_leaf_node() do if the rcu_node tree + contains only a single node? +
    Answer:
    + In the single-node case, + rcu_for_each_nonleaf_node_breadth_first() is a no-op + and rcu_for_each_leaf_node() traverses the single node. +
     
    + +

    +Summary

    + +So each flavor of RCU is represented by an rcu_state structure, +which contains a combining tree of rcu_node and +rcu_data structures. +Finally, in CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE kernels, each CPU's dyntick-idle +state is tracked by an rcu_dynticks structure. + +If you made it this far, you are well prepared to read the code +walkthroughs in the other articles in this series. + +

    +Acknowledgments

    + +I owe thanks to Cyrill Gorcunov, Mathieu Desnoyers, Dhaval Giani, Paul +Turner, Abhishek Srivastava, Matt Kowalczyk, and Serge Hallyn +for helping me get this document into a more human-readable state. + +

    +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. + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/HugeTreeClassicRCU.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/HugeTreeClassicRCU.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..2bf12b468206 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/HugeTreeClassicRCU.svg @@ -0,0 +1,939 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_node + + CPU 0 + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 15 + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 21823 + + CPU 21839 + + rcu_data + + struct + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 43679 + + CPU 43695 + + rcu_data + + struct + + struct + + rcu_data + + CPU 65519 + + CPU 65535 + + rcu_data + + struct + + struct rcu_state + + struct + + rcu_node + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeLevel.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeLevel.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..7a7eb3bac95c --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeLevel.svg @@ -0,0 +1,828 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + struct + + rcu_node + + ->level[0] + + ->level[1] + + ->level[2] + + struct + + rcu_node + + CPU 15 + + CPU 0 + + CPU 65535 + + CPU 65519 + + CPU 43695 + + CPU 43679 + + CPU 21839 + + CPU 21823 + + struct rcu_state + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMapping.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMapping.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..729cfa9e6cdb --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMapping.svg @@ -0,0 +1,305 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0:7 + + 4:7 + + 0:1 + + 2:3 + + 4:5 + + 6:7 + + 0:3 + + struct rcu_state + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMappingLevel.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMappingLevel.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..5b416a4b8453 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/TreeMappingLevel.svg @@ -0,0 +1,380 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ->level[0] + + ->level[1] + + ->level[2] + + 0:7 + + 4:7 + + 0:1 + + 2:3 + + 4:5 + + 6:7 + + 0:3 + + struct rcu_state + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/blkd_task.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/blkd_task.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..00e810bb8419 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/blkd_task.svg @@ -0,0 +1,843 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + rcu_bh + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_node + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct + + rcu_data + + struct rcu_state + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + struct + + rcu_dynticks + + rcu_sched + + T3 + + T2 + + T1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + rcu_node + + struct + + blkd_tasks + + gp_tasks + + exp_tasks + + diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/nxtlist.svg b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/nxtlist.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..abc4cc73a097 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/nxtlist.svg @@ -0,0 +1,396 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + image/svg+xml + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + nxtlist + + nxttail[RCU_DONE_TAIL] + + nxttail[RCU_WAIT_TAIL] + + nxttail[RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL] + + nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] + + CB 1 + + next + + CB 3 + + next + + CB 4 + + next + + CB 2 + + next + + From 6e524a603f0b72281019e4ec29b1022388f9f231 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:22:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 52/56] rcutorture: Add OS-jitter capability This commit adds a --jitter OS-jitter capability to expose bugs based on no-delay assumptions. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../selftests/rcutorture/bin/jitter.sh | 90 +++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh | 18 ++++ 2 files changed, 108 insertions(+) create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/jitter.sh diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/jitter.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/jitter.sh new file mode 100755 index 000000000000..3633828375e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/jitter.sh @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# +# Alternate sleeping and spinning on randomly selected CPUs. The purpose +# of this script is to inflict random OS jitter on a concurrently running +# test. +# +# Usage: jitter.sh me duration [ sleepmax [ spinmax ] ] +# +# me: Random-number-generator seed salt. +# duration: Time to run in seconds. +# sleepmax: Maximum microseconds to sleep, defaults to one second. +# spinmax: Maximum microseconds to spin, defaults to one millisecond. +# +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or +# (at your option) any later version. +# +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +# GNU General Public License for more details. +# +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +# along with this program; if not, you can access it online at +# http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html. +# +# Copyright (C) IBM Corporation, 2016 +# +# Authors: Paul E. McKenney + +me=$(($1 * 1000)) +duration=$2 +sleepmax=${3-1000000} +spinmax=${4-1000} + +n=1 + +starttime=`awk 'BEGIN { print systime(); }' < /dev/null` + +while : +do + # Check for done. + t=`awk -v s=$starttime 'BEGIN { print systime() - s; }' < /dev/null` + if test "$t" -gt "$duration" + then + exit 0; + fi + + # Set affinity to randomly selected CPU + cpus=`ls /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/online | + sed -e 's,/[^/]*$,,' -e 's/^[^0-9]*//' | + grep -v '^0*$'` + cpumask=`awk -v cpus="$cpus" -v me=$me -v n=$n 'BEGIN { + srand(n + me + systime()); + ncpus = split(cpus, ca); + curcpu = ca[int(rand() * ncpus + 1)]; + mask = lshift(1, curcpu); + if (mask + 0 <= 0) + mask = 1; + printf("%#x\n", mask); + }' < /dev/null` + n=$(($n+1)) + if ! taskset -p $cpumask $$ > /dev/null 2>&1 + then + echo taskset failure: '"taskset -p ' $cpumask $$ '"' + exit 1 + fi + + # Sleep a random duration + sleeptime=`awk -v me=$me -v n=$n -v sleepmax=$sleepmax 'BEGIN { + srand(n + me + systime()); + printf("%06d", int(rand() * sleepmax)); + }' < /dev/null` + n=$(($n+1)) + sleep .$sleeptime + + # Spin a random duration + limit=`awk -v me=$me -v n=$n -v spinmax=$spinmax 'BEGIN { + srand(n + me + systime()); + printf("%06d", int(rand() * spinmax)); + }' < /dev/null` + n=$(($n+1)) + for i in {1..$limit} + do + echo > /dev/null + done +done + +exit 1 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh index 704e219f67a7..0d598145873e 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ resdir="" configs="" cpus=0 ds=`date +%Y.%m.%d-%H:%M:%S` +jitter=0 . functions.sh @@ -63,6 +64,7 @@ usage () { echo " --dryrun sched|script" echo " --duration minutes" echo " --interactive" + echo " --jitter N [ maxsleep (us) [ maxspin (us) ] ]" echo " --kmake-arg kernel-make-arguments" echo " --mac nn:nn:nn:nn:nn:nn" echo " --no-initrd" @@ -122,6 +124,11 @@ do --interactive) TORTURE_QEMU_INTERACTIVE=1; export TORTURE_QEMU_INTERACTIVE ;; + --jitter) + checkarg --jitter "(# threads [ sleep [ spin ] ])" $# "$2" '^-\{,1\}[0-9]\+\( \+[0-9]\+\)\{,2\} *$' '^error$' + jitter="$2" + shift + ;; --kmake-arg) checkarg --kmake-arg "(kernel make arguments)" $# "$2" '.*' '^error$' TORTURE_KMAKE_ARG="$2" @@ -299,6 +306,7 @@ awk < $T/cfgcpu.pack \ -v CONFIGDIR="$CONFIGFRAG/" \ -v KVM="$KVM" \ -v ncpus=$cpus \ + -v jitter="$jitter" \ -v rd=$resdir/$ds/ \ -v dur=$dur \ -v TORTURE_QEMU_ARG="$TORTURE_QEMU_ARG" \ @@ -359,6 +367,16 @@ function dump(first, pastlast, batchnum) print "\techo ----", cfr[j], cpusr[j] ovf ": Starting kernel. `date` >> " rd "/log"; print "fi" } + njitter = 0; + split(jitter, ja); + if (ja[1] == -1 && ncpus == 0) + njitter = 1; + else if (ja[1] == -1) + njitter = ncpus; + else + njitter = ja[1]; + for (j = 0; j < njitter; j++) + print "jitter.sh " j " " dur " " ja[2] " " ja[3] "&" print "wait" print "if test -z \"$TORTURE_BUILDONLY\"" print "then" From acc1adf5572205c5b3fc9e6983ca8dfb06c94520 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:48:06 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 53/56] rcutorture: Don't rebuild identical kernel Currently, if the user specifies multiple runs of a given test configuration, the scripting does multiple kernel builds. This wastes both time and disk space, so this commit makes the scripting use the first build for all runs of a given test configuration. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- .../rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh | 26 ++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh index 73a265668421..4109f306d855 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm-test-1-run.sh @@ -91,25 +91,33 @@ fi # CONFIG_PCMCIA=n # CONFIG_CARDBUS=n # CONFIG_YENTA=n -if kvm-build.sh $config_template $builddir $T +base_resdir=`echo $resdir | sed -e 's/\.[0-9]\+$//'` +if test "$base_resdir" != "$resdir" -a -f $base_resdir/bzImage -a -f $base_resdir/vmlinux then + # Rerunning previous test, so use that test's kernel. + QEMU="`identify_qemu $base_resdir/vmlinux`" + KERNEL=$base_resdir/bzImage + ln -s $base_resdir/Make*.out $resdir # for kvm-recheck.sh + ln -s $base_resdir/.config $resdir # for kvm-recheck.sh +elif kvm-build.sh $config_template $builddir $T +then + # Had to build a kernel for this test. QEMU="`identify_qemu $builddir/vmlinux`" BOOT_IMAGE="`identify_boot_image $QEMU`" cp $builddir/Make*.out $resdir + cp $builddir/vmlinux $resdir cp $builddir/.config $resdir if test -n "$BOOT_IMAGE" then cp $builddir/$BOOT_IMAGE $resdir + KERNEL=$resdir/bzImage else echo No identifiable boot image, not running KVM, see $resdir. echo Do the torture scripts know about your architecture? fi parse-build.sh $resdir/Make.out $title - if test -f $builddir.wait - then - mv $builddir.wait $builddir.ready - fi else + # Build failed. cp $builddir/Make*.out $resdir cp $builddir/.config $resdir || : echo Build failed, not running KVM, see $resdir. @@ -119,6 +127,10 @@ else fi exit 1 fi +if test -f $builddir.wait +then + mv $builddir.wait $builddir.ready +fi while test -f $builddir.ready do sleep 1 @@ -166,8 +178,8 @@ then exit 0 fi echo "NOTE: $QEMU either did not run or was interactive" > $resdir/console.log -echo $QEMU $qemu_args -m 512 -kernel $resdir/bzImage -append \"$qemu_append $boot_args\" > $resdir/qemu-cmd -( $QEMU $qemu_args -m 512 -kernel $resdir/bzImage -append "$qemu_append $boot_args"& echo $! > $resdir/qemu_pid; wait `cat $resdir/qemu_pid`; echo $? > $resdir/qemu-retval ) & +echo $QEMU $qemu_args -m 512 -kernel $KERNEL -append \"$qemu_append $boot_args\" > $resdir/qemu-cmd +( $QEMU $qemu_args -m 512 -kernel $KERNEL -append "$qemu_append $boot_args"& echo $! > $resdir/qemu_pid; wait `cat $resdir/qemu_pid`; echo $? > $resdir/qemu-retval ) & commandcompleted=0 sleep 10 # Give qemu's pid a chance to reach the file if test -s "$resdir/qemu_pid" From e9fb365a8847dfe8a9fccae0dce77abf7276b5da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:20:48 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 54/56] rcutorture: Dump trace buffer upon shutdown When running from the scripts, rcutorture is completely headless, so there is no way to to manually dump the trace buffer. This commit therefore unconditionally dumps the trace buffer upon timed shutdown. However, if you are using rmmod to end the test, it is still up to you to manually dump the trace buffer. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/torture.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/kernel/torture.c b/kernel/torture.c index e912ccd960f0..fa0bdeee17ac 100644 --- a/kernel/torture.c +++ b/kernel/torture.c @@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ static int torture_shutdown(void *arg) torture_shutdown_hook(); else VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("No torture_shutdown_hook(), skipping."); + ftrace_dump(DUMP_ALL); kernel_power_off(); /* Shut down the system. */ return 0; } From 0aa67e75b3d59cfe412bfa54ca23797e6c2e3270 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:40:44 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 55/56] rcutorture: Add irqs-disabled test for call_rcu() Mutation testing carried out by Iftekhar Ahmed of Oregon State University showed that rcutorture is failing to test invocations of call_rcu() having interrupts disabled. This commit therefore adds interrupt disabling around one of the existing invocations of call_rcu() (and friends). Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c index 633a68a09440..084a28a732eb 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c @@ -1478,7 +1478,9 @@ static int rcu_torture_barrier_cbs(void *arg) * The above smp_load_acquire() ensures barrier_phase load * is ordered before the folloiwng ->call(). */ + local_irq_disable(); /* Just to test no-irq call_rcu(). */ cur_ops->call(&rcu, rcu_torture_barrier_cbf); + local_irq_enable(); if (atomic_dec_and_test(&barrier_cbs_count)) wake_up(&barrier_wq); } while (!torture_must_stop()); From a54062c0d95921d4fb0edc8d268021bf387e6c75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:16:22 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 56/56] rcutorture: Add boot-time adjustment of leaf fanout Currently, the rcutorture scripts do not test boot-time adjustment of leaf fanout (via the rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf boot parameter), as was noted during testing carried out by Iftekhar Ahmed of Oregon State University. This commit therefore adjusts TREE04's CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF from 4 to 3, and also adds rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf=4 to its boot parameters. This change forces RCU's boot-time geometry-change code to be exercised. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04 | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04.boot | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04 b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04 index 39a2c6d7d7ec..17cbe098b115 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04 +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04 @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n CONFIG_SUSPEND=n CONFIG_HIBERNATION=n CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=4 -CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=4 +CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=3 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=n CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=n diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04.boot b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04.boot index 0fc8a3428938..e34c33430447 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04.boot +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04.boot @@ -1 +1 @@ -rcutorture.torture_type=rcu_bh +rcutorture.torture_type=rcu_bh rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf=4