![SeongJae Park](/assets/img/avatar_default.png)
listRCU.rst document gives an example with 'ipc_lock()', but the
function has dropped off by commit 82061c57ce
("ipc: drop
ipc_lock()"). Because the main logic of 'ipc_lock()' has melded in
'shm_lock()' by the commit, this commit updates the document to use
'shm_lock()' instead.
Reviewed-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
469 lines
16 KiB
ReStructuredText
469 lines
16 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _list_rcu_doc:
|
|
|
|
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-mostly list: Deferred Destruction
|
|
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A widely used usecase for RCU lists in the kernel is lockless iteration over
|
|
all processes in the system. ``task_struct::tasks`` represents the list node that
|
|
links all the processes. The list can be traversed in parallel to any list
|
|
additions or removals.
|
|
|
|
The traversal of the list is done using ``for_each_process()`` which is defined
|
|
by the 2 macros::
|
|
|
|
#define next_task(p) \
|
|
list_entry_rcu((p)->tasks.next, struct task_struct, tasks)
|
|
|
|
#define for_each_process(p) \
|
|
for (p = &init_task ; (p = next_task(p)) != &init_task ; )
|
|
|
|
The code traversing the list of all processes typically looks like::
|
|
|
|
rcu_read_lock();
|
|
for_each_process(p) {
|
|
/* Do something with p */
|
|
}
|
|
rcu_read_unlock();
|
|
|
|
The simplified code for removing a process from a task list is::
|
|
|
|
void release_task(struct task_struct *p)
|
|
{
|
|
write_lock(&tasklist_lock);
|
|
list_del_rcu(&p->tasks);
|
|
write_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
|
|
call_rcu(&p->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
When a process exits, ``release_task()`` calls ``list_del_rcu(&p->tasks)`` under
|
|
``tasklist_lock`` writer lock protection, to remove the task from the list of
|
|
all tasks. The ``tasklist_lock`` prevents concurrent list additions/removals
|
|
from corrupting the list. Readers using ``for_each_process()`` are not protected
|
|
with the ``tasklist_lock``. To prevent readers from noticing changes in the list
|
|
pointers, the ``task_struct`` object is freed only after one or more grace
|
|
periods elapse (with the help of call_rcu()). This deferring of destruction
|
|
ensures that any readers traversing the list will see valid ``p->tasks.next``
|
|
pointers and deletion/freeing can happen in parallel with traversal of the list.
|
|
This pattern is also called an **existence lock**, since RCU pins the object in
|
|
memory until all existing readers finish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example 2: 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);
|
|
/* Note: audit_filter_mutex held by caller. */
|
|
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();
|
|
/* Note: audit_filter_mutex held by caller. */
|
|
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;
|
|
|
|
/* No need to 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);
|
|
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_filter_mutex``, 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!). The list_del_rcu() primitive omits the
|
|
pointer poisoning debug-assist code that would otherwise cause concurrent
|
|
readers to fail spectacularly.
|
|
|
|
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 3: Handling In-Place Updates
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The system-call auditing code does not update auditing rules in place. However,
|
|
if it did, the reader-writer-locked code to do so might look as follows
|
|
(assuming only ``field_count`` is updated, 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_entry *ne;
|
|
|
|
write_lock(&auditsc_lock);
|
|
/* Note: audit_filter_mutex held by caller. */
|
|
list_for_each_entry(e, list, list) {
|
|
if (!audit_compare_rule(rule, &e->rule)) {
|
|
e->rule.action = newaction;
|
|
e->rule.field_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 making 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_entry *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.field_count = newfield_count;
|
|
list_replace_rcu(&e->list, &ne->list);
|
|
call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule);
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Again, this assumes that the caller holds ``audit_filter_mutex``. Normally, the
|
|
writer lock would become a spinlock in this sort of code.
|
|
|
|
Another use of this pattern can be found in the openswitch driver's *connection
|
|
tracking table* code in ``ct_limit_set()``. The table holds connection tracking
|
|
entries and has a limit on the maximum entries. There is one such table
|
|
per-zone and hence one *limit* per zone. The zones are mapped to their limits
|
|
through a hashtable using an RCU-managed hlist for the hash chains. When a new
|
|
limit is set, a new limit object is allocated and ``ct_limit_set()`` is called
|
|
to replace the old limit object with the new one using list_replace_rcu().
|
|
The old limit object is then freed after a grace period using kfree_rcu().
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example 4: Eliminating Stale Data
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The auditing example above tolerates 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 generally 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 shm_lock()
|
|
function in ipc/shm.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 shm_lock() does in fact do.
|
|
|
|
.. _quick_quiz:
|
|
|
|
Quick Quiz:
|
|
For the deleted-flag technique to be helpful, why is it necessary
|
|
to hold the per-entry lock while returning from the search function?
|
|
|
|
:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz <quick_quiz_answer>`
|
|
|
|
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;
|
|
|
|
/* No need to 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);
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
This too assumes that the caller holds ``audit_filter_mutex``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example 5: Skipping Stale Objects
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
For some usecases, reader performance can be improved by skipping stale objects
|
|
during read-side list traversal if the object in concern is pending destruction
|
|
after one or more grace periods. One such example can be found in the timerfd
|
|
subsystem. When a ``CLOCK_REALTIME`` clock is reprogrammed - for example due to
|
|
setting of the system time, then all programmed timerfds that depend on this
|
|
clock get triggered and processes waiting on them to expire are woken up in
|
|
advance of their scheduled expiry. To facilitate this, all such timers are added
|
|
to an RCU-managed ``cancel_list`` when they are setup in
|
|
``timerfd_setup_cancel()``::
|
|
|
|
static void timerfd_setup_cancel(struct timerfd_ctx *ctx, int flags)
|
|
{
|
|
spin_lock(&ctx->cancel_lock);
|
|
if ((ctx->clockid == CLOCK_REALTIME &&
|
|
(flags & TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME) && (flags & TFD_TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET)) {
|
|
if (!ctx->might_cancel) {
|
|
ctx->might_cancel = true;
|
|
spin_lock(&cancel_lock);
|
|
list_add_rcu(&ctx->clist, &cancel_list);
|
|
spin_unlock(&cancel_lock);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
spin_unlock(&ctx->cancel_lock);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
When a timerfd is freed (fd is closed), then the ``might_cancel`` flag of the
|
|
timerfd object is cleared, the object removed from the ``cancel_list`` and
|
|
destroyed::
|
|
|
|
int timerfd_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
|
|
{
|
|
struct timerfd_ctx *ctx = file->private_data;
|
|
|
|
spin_lock(&ctx->cancel_lock);
|
|
if (ctx->might_cancel) {
|
|
ctx->might_cancel = false;
|
|
spin_lock(&cancel_lock);
|
|
list_del_rcu(&ctx->clist);
|
|
spin_unlock(&cancel_lock);
|
|
}
|
|
spin_unlock(&ctx->cancel_lock);
|
|
|
|
hrtimer_cancel(&ctx->t.tmr);
|
|
kfree_rcu(ctx, rcu);
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
If the ``CLOCK_REALTIME`` clock is set, for example by a time server, the
|
|
hrtimer framework calls ``timerfd_clock_was_set()`` which walks the
|
|
``cancel_list`` and wakes up processes waiting on the timerfd. While iterating
|
|
the ``cancel_list``, the ``might_cancel`` flag is consulted to skip stale
|
|
objects::
|
|
|
|
void timerfd_clock_was_set(void)
|
|
{
|
|
struct timerfd_ctx *ctx;
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
rcu_read_lock();
|
|
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ctx, &cancel_list, clist) {
|
|
if (!ctx->might_cancel)
|
|
continue;
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->wqh.lock, flags);
|
|
if (ctx->moffs != ktime_mono_to_real(0)) {
|
|
ctx->moffs = KTIME_MAX;
|
|
ctx->ticks++;
|
|
wake_up_locked_poll(&ctx->wqh, EPOLLIN);
|
|
}
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->wqh.lock, flags);
|
|
}
|
|
rcu_read_unlock();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
The key point here is, because RCU-traversal of the ``cancel_list`` happens
|
|
while objects are being added and removed to the list, sometimes the traversal
|
|
can step on an object that has been removed from the list. In this example, it
|
|
is seen that it is better to skip such objects using a flag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
.. _quick_quiz_answer:
|
|
|
|
Answer to Quick Quiz:
|
|
For the deleted-flag technique to be helpful, why is it necessary
|
|
to hold the per-entry lock while returning from the search function?
|
|
|
|
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 that was returned.
|
|
|
|
:ref:`Back to Quick Quiz <quick_quiz>`
|