1.. _rcu_barrier: 2 3RCU and Unloadable Modules 4========================== 5 6[Originally published in LWN Jan. 14, 2007: http://lwn.net/Articles/217484/] 7 8RCU (read-copy update) is a synchronization mechanism that can be thought 9of as a replacement for read-writer locking (among other things), but with 10very low-overhead readers that are immune to deadlock, priority inversion, 11and unbounded latency. RCU read-side critical sections are delimited 12by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), which, in non-CONFIG_PREEMPT 13kernels, generate no code whatsoever. 14 15This means that RCU writers are unaware of the presence of concurrent 16readers, so that RCU updates to shared data must be undertaken quite 17carefully, leaving an old version of the data structure in place until all 18pre-existing readers have finished. These old versions are needed because 19such readers might hold a reference to them. RCU updates can therefore be 20rather expensive, and RCU is thus best suited for read-mostly situations. 21 22How can an RCU writer possibly determine when all readers are finished, 23given that readers might well leave absolutely no trace of their 24presence? There is a synchronize_rcu() primitive that blocks until all 25pre-existing readers have completed. An updater wishing to delete an 26element p from a linked list might do the following, while holding an 27appropriate lock, of course:: 28 29 list_del_rcu(p); 30 synchronize_rcu(); 31 kfree(p); 32 33But the above code cannot be used in IRQ context -- the call_rcu() 34primitive must be used instead. This primitive takes a pointer to an 35rcu_head struct placed within the RCU-protected data structure and 36another pointer to a function that may be invoked later to free that 37structure. Code to delete an element p from the linked list from IRQ 38context might then be as follows:: 39 40 list_del_rcu(p); 41 call_rcu(&p->rcu, p_callback); 42 43Since call_rcu() never blocks, this code can safely be used from within 44IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows:: 45 46 static void p_callback(struct rcu_head *rp) 47 { 48 struct pstruct *p = container_of(rp, struct pstruct, rcu); 49 50 kfree(p); 51 } 52 53 54Unloading Modules That Use call_rcu() 55------------------------------------- 56 57But what if p_callback is defined in an unloadable module? 58 59If we unload the module while some RCU callbacks are pending, 60the CPUs executing these callbacks are going to be severely 61disappointed when they are later invoked, as fancifully depicted at 62http://lwn.net/images/ns/kernel/rcu-drop.jpg. 63 64We could try placing a synchronize_rcu() in the module-exit code path, 65but this is not sufficient. Although synchronize_rcu() does wait for a 66grace period to elapse, it does not wait for the callbacks to complete. 67 68One might be tempted to try several back-to-back synchronize_rcu() 69calls, but this is still not guaranteed to work. If there is a very 70heavy RCU-callback load, then some of the callbacks might be deferred 71in order to allow other processing to proceed. Such deferral is required 72in realtime kernels in order to avoid excessive scheduling latencies. 73 74 75rcu_barrier() 76------------- 77 78We instead need the rcu_barrier() primitive. Rather than waiting for 79a grace period to elapse, rcu_barrier() waits for all outstanding RCU 80callbacks to complete. Please note that rcu_barrier() does **not** imply 81synchronize_rcu(), in particular, if there are no RCU callbacks queued 82anywhere, rcu_barrier() is within its rights to return immediately, 83without waiting for a grace period to elapse. 84 85Pseudo-code using rcu_barrier() is as follows: 86 87 1. Prevent any new RCU callbacks from being posted. 88 2. Execute rcu_barrier(). 89 3. Allow the module to be unloaded. 90 91There is also an srcu_barrier() function for SRCU, and you of course 92must match the flavor of rcu_barrier() with that of call_rcu(). If your 93module uses multiple flavors of call_rcu(), then it must also use multiple 94flavors of rcu_barrier() when unloading that module. For example, if 95it uses call_rcu(), call_srcu() on srcu_struct_1, and call_srcu() on 96srcu_struct_2, then the following three lines of code will be required 97when unloading:: 98 99 1 rcu_barrier(); 100 2 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_1); 101 3 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_2); 102 103The rcutorture module makes use of rcu_barrier() in its exit function 104as follows:: 105 106 1 static void 107 2 rcu_torture_cleanup(void) 108 3 { 109 4 int i; 110 5 111 6 fullstop = 1; 112 7 if (shuffler_task != NULL) { 113 8 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_shuffle task"); 114 9 kthread_stop(shuffler_task); 115 10 } 116 11 shuffler_task = NULL; 117 12 118 13 if (writer_task != NULL) { 119 14 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_writer task"); 120 15 kthread_stop(writer_task); 121 16 } 122 17 writer_task = NULL; 123 18 124 19 if (reader_tasks != NULL) { 125 20 for (i = 0; i < nrealreaders; i++) { 126 21 if (reader_tasks[i] != NULL) { 127 22 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( 128 23 "Stopping rcu_torture_reader task"); 129 24 kthread_stop(reader_tasks[i]); 130 25 } 131 26 reader_tasks[i] = NULL; 132 27 } 133 28 kfree(reader_tasks); 134 29 reader_tasks = NULL; 135 30 } 136 31 rcu_torture_current = NULL; 137 32 138 33 if (fakewriter_tasks != NULL) { 139 34 for (i = 0; i < nfakewriters; i++) { 140 35 if (fakewriter_tasks[i] != NULL) { 141 36 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING( 142 37 "Stopping rcu_torture_fakewriter task"); 143 38 kthread_stop(fakewriter_tasks[i]); 144 39 } 145 40 fakewriter_tasks[i] = NULL; 146 41 } 147 42 kfree(fakewriter_tasks); 148 43 fakewriter_tasks = NULL; 149 44 } 150 45 151 46 if (stats_task != NULL) { 152 47 VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("Stopping rcu_torture_stats task"); 153 48 kthread_stop(stats_task); 154 49 } 155 50 stats_task = NULL; 156 51 157 52 /* Wait for all RCU callbacks to fire. */ 158 53 rcu_barrier(); 159 54 160 55 rcu_torture_stats_print(); /* -After- the stats thread is stopped! */ 161 56 162 57 if (cur_ops->cleanup != NULL) 163 58 cur_ops->cleanup(); 164 59 if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_torture_error)) 165 60 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: FAILURE"); 166 61 else 167 62 rcu_torture_print_module_parms("End of test: SUCCESS"); 168 63 } 169 170Line 6 sets a global variable that prevents any RCU callbacks from 171re-posting themselves. This will not be necessary in most cases, since 172RCU callbacks rarely include calls to call_rcu(). However, the rcutorture 173module is an exception to this rule, and therefore needs to set this 174global variable. 175 176Lines 7-50 stop all the kernel tasks associated with the rcutorture 177module. Therefore, once execution reaches line 53, no more rcutorture 178RCU callbacks will be posted. The rcu_barrier() call on line 53 waits 179for any pre-existing callbacks to complete. 180 181Then lines 55-62 print status and do operation-specific cleanup, and 182then return, permitting the module-unload operation to be completed. 183 184.. _rcubarrier_quiz_1: 185 186Quick Quiz #1: 187 Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might 188 be required? 189 190:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #1 <answer_rcubarrier_quiz_1>` 191 192Your module might have additional complications. For example, if your 193module invokes call_rcu() from timers, you will need to first cancel all 194the timers, and only then invoke rcu_barrier() to wait for any remaining 195RCU callbacks to complete. 196 197Of course, if you module uses call_rcu(), you will need to invoke 198rcu_barrier() before unloading. Similarly, if your module uses 199call_srcu(), you will need to invoke srcu_barrier() before unloading, 200and on the same srcu_struct structure. If your module uses call_rcu() 201**and** call_srcu(), then you will need to invoke rcu_barrier() **and** 202srcu_barrier(). 203 204 205Implementing rcu_barrier() 206-------------------------- 207 208Dipankar Sarma's implementation of rcu_barrier() makes use of the fact 209that RCU callbacks are never reordered once queued on one of the per-CPU 210queues. His implementation queues an RCU callback on each of the per-CPU 211callback queues, and then waits until they have all started executing, at 212which point, all earlier RCU callbacks are guaranteed to have completed. 213 214The original code for rcu_barrier() was as follows:: 215 216 1 void rcu_barrier(void) 217 2 { 218 3 BUG_ON(in_interrupt()); 219 4 /* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */ 220 5 mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); 221 6 init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); 222 7 atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 0); 223 8 on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, NULL, 0, 1); 224 9 wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion); 225 10 mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex); 226 11 } 227 228Line 3 verifies that the caller is in process context, and lines 5 and 10 229use rcu_barrier_mutex to ensure that only one rcu_barrier() is using the 230global completion and counters at a time, which are initialized on lines 2316 and 7. Line 8 causes each CPU to invoke rcu_barrier_func(), which is 232shown below. Note that the final "1" in on_each_cpu()'s argument list 233ensures that all the calls to rcu_barrier_func() will have completed 234before on_each_cpu() returns. Line 9 then waits for the completion. 235 236This code was rewritten in 2008 and several times thereafter, but this 237still gives the general idea. 238 239The rcu_barrier_func() runs on each CPU, where it invokes call_rcu() 240to post an RCU callback, as follows:: 241 242 1 static void rcu_barrier_func(void *notused) 243 2 { 244 3 int cpu = smp_processor_id(); 245 4 struct rcu_data *rdp = &per_cpu(rcu_data, cpu); 246 5 struct rcu_head *head; 247 6 248 7 head = &rdp->barrier; 249 8 atomic_inc(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count); 250 9 call_rcu(head, rcu_barrier_callback); 251 10 } 252 253Lines 3 and 4 locate RCU's internal per-CPU rcu_data structure, 254which contains the struct rcu_head that needed for the later call to 255call_rcu(). Line 7 picks up a pointer to this struct rcu_head, and line 2568 increments a global counter. This counter will later be decremented 257by the callback. Line 9 then registers the rcu_barrier_callback() on 258the current CPU's queue. 259 260The rcu_barrier_callback() function simply atomically decrements the 261rcu_barrier_cpu_count variable and finalizes the completion when it 262reaches zero, as follows:: 263 264 1 static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *notused) 265 2 { 266 3 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count)) 267 4 complete(&rcu_barrier_completion); 268 5 } 269 270.. _rcubarrier_quiz_2: 271 272Quick Quiz #2: 273 What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes 274 immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the 275 value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations 276 are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in 277 rcu_barrier() returning prematurely? 278 279:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #2 <answer_rcubarrier_quiz_2>` 280 281The current rcu_barrier() implementation is more complex, due to the need 282to avoid disturbing idle CPUs (especially on battery-powered systems) 283and the need to minimally disturb non-idle CPUs in real-time systems. 284However, the code above illustrates the concepts. 285 286 287rcu_barrier() Summary 288--------------------- 289 290The rcu_barrier() primitive has seen relatively little use, since most 291code using RCU is in the core kernel rather than in modules. However, if 292you are using RCU from an unloadable module, you need to use rcu_barrier() 293so that your module may be safely unloaded. 294 295 296Answers to Quick Quizzes 297------------------------ 298 299.. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_1: 300 301Quick Quiz #1: 302 Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might 303 be required? 304 305Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally 306 implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using 307 RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at 308 filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier() 309 in response, so that Nikita could invoke it during the 310 filesystem-unmount process. 311 312 Much later, yours truly hit the RCU module-unload problem when 313 implementing rcutorture, and found that rcu_barrier() solves 314 this problem as well. 315 316:ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #1 <rcubarrier_quiz_1>` 317 318.. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_2: 319 320Quick Quiz #2: 321 What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes 322 immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the 323 value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations 324 are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in 325 rcu_barrier() returning prematurely? 326 327Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last 328 argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through 329 to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(), 330 causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of 331 rcu_barrier_func() has completed. This by itself would prevent 332 a grace period from completing on non-CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, 333 since each CPU must undergo a context switch (or other quiescent 334 state) before the grace period can complete. However, this is 335 of no use in CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels. 336 337 Therefore, on_each_cpu() disables preemption across its call 338 to smp_call_function() and also across the local call to 339 rcu_barrier_func(). This prevents the local CPU from context 340 switching, again preventing grace periods from completing. This 341 means that all CPUs have executed rcu_barrier_func() before 342 the first rcu_barrier_callback() can possibly execute, in turn 343 preventing rcu_barrier_cpu_count from prematurely reaching zero. 344 345 Currently, -rt implementations of RCU keep but a single global 346 queue for RCU callbacks, and thus do not suffer from this 347 problem. However, when the -rt RCU eventually does have per-CPU 348 callback queues, things will have to change. One simple change 349 is to add an rcu_read_lock() before line 8 of rcu_barrier() 350 and an rcu_read_unlock() after line 8 of this same function. If 351 you can think of a better change, please let me know! 352 353:ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #2 <rcubarrier_quiz_2>` 354