diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt | 307 |
1 files changed, 307 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..bda6ead69bd --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.txt @@ -0,0 +1,307 @@ +Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Linked Lists + + +One of the best applications of RCU is to protect read-mostly linked lists +("struct list_head" in list.h). One big advantage of this approach +is that all of the required memory barriers are included for you in +the list macros. This document describes several applications of RCU, +with the best fits first. + + +Example 1: Read-Side Action Taken Outside of Lock, No In-Place Updates + +The best applications are cases where, if reader-writer locking were +used, the read-side lock would be dropped before taking any action +based on the results of the search. The most celebrated example is +the routing table. Because the routing table is tracking the state of +equipment outside of the computer, it will at times contain stale data. +Therefore, once the route has been computed, there is no need to hold +the routing table static during transmission of the packet. After all, +you can hold the routing table static all you want, but that won't keep +the external Internet from changing, and it is the state of the external +Internet that really matters. In addition, routing entries are typically +added or deleted, rather than being modified in place. + +A straightforward example of this use of RCU may be found in the +system-call auditing support. For example, a reader-writer locked +implementation of audit_filter_task() might be as follows: + + static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + enum audit_state state; + + read_lock(&auditsc_lock); + list_for_each_entry(e, &audit_tsklist, list) { + if (audit_filter_rules(tsk, &e->rule, NULL, &state)) { + read_unlock(&auditsc_lock); + return state; + } + } + read_unlock(&auditsc_lock); + return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT; + } + +Here the list is searched under the lock, but the lock is dropped before +the corresponding value is returned. By the time that this value is acted +on, the list may well have been modified. This makes sense, since if +you are turning auditing off, it is OK to audit a few extra system calls. + +This means that RCU can be easily applied to the read side, as follows: + + static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + enum audit_state state; + + rcu_read_lock(); + list_for_each_entry_rcu(e, &audit_tsklist, list) { + if (audit_filter_rules(tsk, &e->rule, NULL, &state)) { + rcu_read_unlock(); + return state; + } + } + rcu_read_unlock(); + return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT; + } + +The read_lock() and read_unlock() calls have become rcu_read_lock() +and rcu_read_unlock(), respectively, and the list_for_each_entry() has +become list_for_each_entry_rcu(). The _rcu() list-traversal primitives +insert the read-side memory barriers that are required on DEC Alpha CPUs. + +The changes to the update side are also straightforward. A reader-writer +lock might be used as follows for deletion and insertion: + + static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule, + struct list_head *list) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + + write_lock(&auditsc_lock); + list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) { + if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) { + list_del(&e->list); + write_unlock(&auditsc_lock); + return 0; + } + } + write_unlock(&auditsc_lock); + return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */ + } + + static inline int audit_add_rule(struct audit_entry *entry, + struct list_head *list) + { + write_lock(&auditsc_lock); + if (entry->rule.flags & AUDIT_PREPEND) { + entry->rule.flags &= ~AUDIT_PREPEND; + list_add(&entry->list, list); + } else { + list_add_tail(&entry->list, list); + } + write_unlock(&auditsc_lock); + return 0; + } + +Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions: + + static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule, + struct list_head *list) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + + /* Do not use the _rcu iterator here, since this is the only + * deletion routine. */ + list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) { + if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) { + list_del_rcu(&e->list); + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e); + return 0; + } + } + return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */ + } + + static inline int audit_add_rule(struct audit_entry *entry, + struct list_head *list) + { + if (entry->rule.flags & AUDIT_PREPEND) { + entry->rule.flags &= ~AUDIT_PREPEND; + list_add_rcu(&entry->list, list); + } else { + list_add_tail_rcu(&entry->list, list); + } + return 0; + } + +Normally, the write_lock() and write_unlock() would be replaced by +a spin_lock() and a spin_unlock(), but in this case, all callers hold +audit_netlink_sem, so no additional locking is required. The auditsc_lock +can therefore be eliminated, since use of RCU eliminates the need for +writers to exclude readers. + +The list_del(), list_add(), and list_add_tail() primitives have been +replaced by list_del_rcu(), list_add_rcu(), and list_add_tail_rcu(). +The _rcu() list-manipulation primitives add memory barriers that are +needed on weakly ordered CPUs (most of them!). + +So, when readers can tolerate stale data and when entries are either added +or deleted, without in-place modification, it is very easy to use RCU! + + +Example 2: Handling In-Place Updates + +The system-call auditing code does not update auditing rules in place. +However, if it did, reader-writer-locked code to do so might look as +follows (presumably, the field_count is only permitted to decrease, +otherwise, the added fields would need to be filled in): + + static inline int audit_upd_rule(struct audit_rule *rule, + struct list_head *list, + __u32 newaction, + __u32 newfield_count) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + struct audit_newentry *ne; + + write_lock(&auditsc_lock); + list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) { + if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) { + e->rule.action = newaction; + e->rule.file_count = newfield_count; + write_unlock(&auditsc_lock); + return 0; + } + } + write_unlock(&auditsc_lock); + return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */ + } + +The RCU version creates a copy, updates the copy, then replaces the old +entry with the newly updated entry. This sequence of actions, allowing +concurrent reads while doing a copy to perform an update, is what gives +RCU ("read-copy update") its name. The RCU code is as follows: + + static inline int audit_upd_rule(struct audit_rule *rule, + struct list_head *list, + __u32 newaction, + __u32 newfield_count) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + struct audit_newentry *ne; + + list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) { + if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) { + ne = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_ATOMIC); + if (ne == NULL) + return -ENOMEM; + audit_copy_rule(&ne->rule, &e->rule); + ne->rule.action = newaction; + ne->rule.file_count = newfield_count; + list_add_rcu(ne, e); + list_del(e); + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e); + return 0; + } + } + return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */ + } + +Again, this assumes that the caller holds audit_netlink_sem. Normally, +the reader-writer lock would become a spinlock in this sort of code. + + +Example 3: Eliminating Stale Data + +The auditing examples above tolerate stale data, as do most algorithms +that are tracking external state. Because there is a delay from the +time the external state changes before Linux becomes aware of the change, +additional RCU-induced staleness is normally not a problem. + +However, there are many examples where stale data cannot be tolerated. +One example in the Linux kernel is the System V IPC (see the ipc_lock() +function in ipc/util.c). This code checks a "deleted" flag under a +per-entry spinlock, and, if the "deleted" flag is set, pretends that the +entry does not exist. For this to be helpful, the search function must +return holding the per-entry spinlock, as ipc_lock() does in fact do. + +Quick Quiz: Why does the search function need to return holding the +per-entry lock for this deleted-flag technique to be helpful? + +If the system-call audit module were to ever need to reject stale data, +one way to accomplish this would be to add a "deleted" flag and a "lock" +spinlock to the audit_entry structure, and modify audit_filter_task() +as follows: + + static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + enum audit_state state; + + rcu_read_lock(); + list_for_each_entry_rcu(e, &audit_tsklist, list) { + if (audit_filter_rules(tsk, &e->rule, NULL, &state)) { + spin_lock(&e->lock); + if (e->deleted) { + spin_unlock(&e->lock); + rcu_read_unlock(); + return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT; + } + rcu_read_unlock(); + return state; + } + } + rcu_read_unlock(); + return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT; + } + +Note that this example assumes that entries are only added and deleted. +Additional mechanism is required to deal correctly with the +update-in-place performed by audit_upd_rule(). For one thing, +audit_upd_rule() would need additional memory barriers to ensure +that the list_add_rcu() was really executed before the list_del_rcu(). + +The audit_del_rule() function would need to set the "deleted" +flag under the spinlock as follows: + + static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule, + struct list_head *list) + { + struct audit_entry *e; + + /* Do not use the _rcu iterator here, since this is the only + * deletion routine. */ + list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) { + if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) { + spin_lock(&e->lock); + list_del_rcu(&e->list); + e->deleted = 1; + spin_unlock(&e->lock); + call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule, e); + return 0; + } + } + return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */ + } + + +Summary + +Read-mostly list-based data structures that can tolerate stale data are +the most amenable to use of RCU. The simplest case is where entries are +either added or deleted from the data structure (or atomically modified +in place), but non-atomic in-place modifications can be handled by making +a copy, updating the copy, then replacing the original with the copy. +If stale data cannot be tolerated, then a "deleted" flag may be used +in conjunction with a per-entry spinlock in order to allow the search +function to reject newly deleted data. + + +Answer to Quick Quiz + +If the search function drops the per-entry lock before returning, then +the caller will be processing stale data in any case. If it is really +OK to be processing stale data, then you don't need a "deleted" flag. +If processing stale data really is a problem, then you need to hold the +per-entry lock across all of the code that uses the value looked up. |