diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'qemu/docs/rcu.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | qemu/docs/rcu.txt | 390 |
1 files changed, 390 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/qemu/docs/rcu.txt b/qemu/docs/rcu.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..21ecb8106 --- /dev/null +++ b/qemu/docs/rcu.txt @@ -0,0 +1,390 @@ +Using RCU (Read-Copy-Update) for synchronization +================================================ + +Read-copy update (RCU) is a synchronization mechanism that is used to +protect read-mostly data structures. RCU is very efficient and scalable +on the read side (it is wait-free), and thus can make the read paths +extremely fast. + +RCU supports concurrency between a single writer and multiple readers, +thus it is not used alone. Typically, the write-side will use a lock to +serialize multiple updates, but other approaches are possible (e.g., +restricting updates to a single task). In QEMU, when a lock is used, +this will often be the "iothread mutex", also known as the "big QEMU +lock" (BQL). Also, restricting updates to a single task is done in +QEMU using the "bottom half" API. + +RCU is fundamentally a "wait-to-finish" mechanism. The read side marks +sections of code with "critical sections", and the update side will wait +for the execution of all *currently running* critical sections before +proceeding, or before asynchronously executing a callback. + +The key point here is that only the currently running critical sections +are waited for; critical sections that are started _after_ the beginning +of the wait do not extend the wait, despite running concurrently with +the updater. This is the reason why RCU is more scalable than, +for example, reader-writer locks. It is so much more scalable that +the system will have a single instance of the RCU mechanism; a single +mechanism can be used for an arbitrary number of "things", without +having to worry about things such as contention or deadlocks. + +How is this possible? The basic idea is to split updates in two phases, +"removal" and "reclamation". During removal, we ensure that subsequent +readers will not be able to get a reference to the old data. After +removal has completed, a critical section will not be able to access +the old data. Therefore, critical sections that begin after removal +do not matter; as soon as all previous critical sections have finished, +there cannot be any readers who hold references to the data structure, +and these can now be safely reclaimed (e.g., freed or unref'ed). + +Here is a picutre: + + thread 1 thread 2 thread 3 + ------------------- ------------------------ ------------------- + enter RCU crit.sec. + | finish removal phase + | begin wait + | | enter RCU crit.sec. + exit RCU crit.sec | | + complete wait | + begin reclamation phase | + exit RCU crit.sec. + + +Note how thread 3 is still executing its critical section when thread 2 +starts reclaiming data. This is possible, because the old version of the +data structure was not accessible at the time thread 3 began executing +that critical section. + + +RCU API +======= + +The core RCU API is small: + + void rcu_read_lock(void); + + Used by a reader to inform the reclaimer that the reader is + entering an RCU read-side critical section. + + void rcu_read_unlock(void); + + Used by a reader to inform the reclaimer that the reader is + exiting an RCU read-side critical section. Note that RCU + read-side critical sections may be nested and/or overlapping. + + void synchronize_rcu(void); + + Blocks until all pre-existing RCU read-side critical sections + on all threads have completed. This marks the end of the removal + phase and the beginning of reclamation phase. + + Note that it would be valid for another update to come while + synchronize_rcu is running. Because of this, it is better that + the updater releases any locks it may hold before calling + synchronize_rcu. If this is not possible (for example, because + the updater is protected by the BQL), you can use call_rcu. + + void call_rcu1(struct rcu_head * head, + void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head)); + + This function invokes func(head) after all pre-existing RCU + read-side critical sections on all threads have completed. This + marks the end of the removal phase, with func taking care + asynchronously of the reclamation phase. + + The foo struct needs to have an rcu_head structure added, + perhaps as follows: + + struct foo { + struct rcu_head rcu; + int a; + char b; + long c; + }; + + so that the reclaimer function can fetch the struct foo address + and free it: + + call_rcu1(&foo.rcu, foo_reclaim); + + void foo_reclaim(struct rcu_head *rp) + { + struct foo *fp = container_of(rp, struct foo, rcu); + g_free(fp); + } + + For the common case where the rcu_head member is the first of the + struct, you can use the following macro. + + void call_rcu(T *p, + void (*func)(T *p), + field-name); + void g_free_rcu(T *p, + field-name); + + call_rcu1 is typically used through these macro, in the common case + where the "struct rcu_head" is the first field in the struct. If + the callback function is g_free, in particular, g_free_rcu can be + used. In the above case, one could have written simply: + + g_free_rcu(foo_reclaim, rcu); + + typeof(*p) atomic_rcu_read(p); + + atomic_rcu_read() is similar to atomic_mb_read(), but it makes + some assumptions on the code that calls it. This allows a more + optimized implementation. + + atomic_rcu_read assumes that whenever a single RCU critical + section reads multiple shared data, these reads are either + data-dependent or need no ordering. This is almost always the + case when using RCU, because read-side critical sections typically + navigate one or more pointers (the pointers that are changed on + every update) until reaching a data structure of interest, + and then read from there. + + RCU read-side critical sections must use atomic_rcu_read() to + read data, unless concurrent writes are presented by another + synchronization mechanism. + + Furthermore, RCU read-side critical sections should traverse the + data structure in a single direction, opposite to the direction + in which the updater initializes it. + + void atomic_rcu_set(p, typeof(*p) v); + + atomic_rcu_set() is also similar to atomic_mb_set(), and it also + makes assumptions on the code that calls it in order to allow a more + optimized implementation. + + In particular, atomic_rcu_set() suffices for synchronization + with readers, if the updater never mutates a field within a + data item that is already accessible to readers. This is the + case when initializing a new copy of the RCU-protected data + structure; just ensure that initialization of *p is carried out + before atomic_rcu_set() makes the data item visible to readers. + If this rule is observed, writes will happen in the opposite + order as reads in the RCU read-side critical sections (or if + there is just one update), and there will be no need for other + synchronization mechanism to coordinate the accesses. + +The following APIs must be used before RCU is used in a thread: + + void rcu_register_thread(void); + + Mark a thread as taking part in the RCU mechanism. Such a thread + will have to report quiescent points regularly, either manually + or through the QemuCond/QemuSemaphore/QemuEvent APIs. + + void rcu_unregister_thread(void); + + Mark a thread as not taking part anymore in the RCU mechanism. + It is not a problem if such a thread reports quiescent points, + either manually or by using the QemuCond/QemuSemaphore/QemuEvent + APIs. + +Note that these APIs are relatively heavyweight, and should _not_ be +nested. + + +DIFFERENCES WITH LINUX +====================== + +- Waiting on a mutex is possible, though discouraged, within an RCU critical + section. This is because spinlocks are rarely (if ever) used in userspace + programming; not allowing this would prevent upgrading an RCU read-side + critical section to become an updater. + +- atomic_rcu_read and atomic_rcu_set replace rcu_dereference and + rcu_assign_pointer. They take a _pointer_ to the variable being accessed. + +- call_rcu is a macro that has an extra argument (the name of the first + field in the struct, which must be a struct rcu_head), and expects the + type of the callback's argument to be the type of the first argument. + call_rcu1 is the same as Linux's call_rcu. + + +RCU PATTERNS +============ + +Many patterns using read-writer locks translate directly to RCU, with +the advantages of higher scalability and deadlock immunity. + +In general, RCU can be used whenever it is possible to create a new +"version" of a data structure every time the updater runs. This may +sound like a very strict restriction, however: + +- the updater does not mean "everything that writes to a data structure", + but rather "everything that involves a reclamation step". See the + array example below + +- in some cases, creating a new version of a data structure may actually + be very cheap. For example, modifying the "next" pointer of a singly + linked list is effectively creating a new version of the list. + +Here are some frequently-used RCU idioms that are worth noting. + + +RCU list processing +------------------- + +TBD (not yet used in QEMU) + + +RCU reference counting +---------------------- + +Because grace periods are not allowed to complete while there is an RCU +read-side critical section in progress, the RCU read-side primitives +may be used as a restricted reference-counting mechanism. For example, +consider the following code fragment: + + rcu_read_lock(); + p = atomic_rcu_read(&foo); + /* do something with p. */ + rcu_read_unlock(); + +The RCU read-side critical section ensures that the value of "p" remains +valid until after the rcu_read_unlock(). In some sense, it is acquiring +a reference to p that is later released when the critical section ends. +The write side looks simply like this (with appropriate locking): + + qemu_mutex_lock(&foo_mutex); + old = foo; + atomic_rcu_set(&foo, new); + qemu_mutex_unlock(&foo_mutex); + synchronize_rcu(); + free(old); + +If the processing cannot be done purely within the critical section, it +is possible to combine this idiom with a "real" reference count: + + rcu_read_lock(); + p = atomic_rcu_read(&foo); + foo_ref(p); + rcu_read_unlock(); + /* do something with p. */ + foo_unref(p); + +The write side can be like this: + + qemu_mutex_lock(&foo_mutex); + old = foo; + atomic_rcu_set(&foo, new); + qemu_mutex_unlock(&foo_mutex); + synchronize_rcu(); + foo_unref(old); + +or with call_rcu: + + qemu_mutex_lock(&foo_mutex); + old = foo; + atomic_rcu_set(&foo, new); + qemu_mutex_unlock(&foo_mutex); + call_rcu(foo_unref, old, rcu); + +In both cases, the write side only performs removal. Reclamation +happens when the last reference to a "foo" object is dropped. +Using synchronize_rcu() is undesirably expensive, because the +last reference may be dropped on the read side. Hence you can +use call_rcu() instead: + + foo_unref(struct foo *p) { + if (atomic_fetch_dec(&p->refcount) == 1) { + call_rcu(foo_destroy, p, rcu); + } + } + + +Note that the same idioms would be possible with reader/writer +locks: + + read_lock(&foo_rwlock); write_mutex_lock(&foo_rwlock); + p = foo; p = foo; + /* do something with p. */ foo = new; + read_unlock(&foo_rwlock); free(p); + write_mutex_unlock(&foo_rwlock); + free(p); + + ------------------------------------------------------------------ + + read_lock(&foo_rwlock); write_mutex_lock(&foo_rwlock); + p = foo; old = foo; + foo_ref(p); foo = new; + read_unlock(&foo_rwlock); foo_unref(old); + /* do something with p. */ write_mutex_unlock(&foo_rwlock); + read_lock(&foo_rwlock); + foo_unref(p); + read_unlock(&foo_rwlock); + +foo_unref could use a mechanism such as bottom halves to move deallocation +out of the write-side critical section. + + +RCU resizable arrays +-------------------- + +Resizable arrays can be used with RCU. The expensive RCU synchronization +(or call_rcu) only needs to take place when the array is resized. +The two items to take care of are: + +- ensuring that the old version of the array is available between removal + and reclamation; + +- avoiding mismatches in the read side between the array data and the + array size. + +The first problem is avoided simply by not using realloc. Instead, +each resize will allocate a new array and copy the old data into it. +The second problem would arise if the size and the data pointers were +two members of a larger struct: + + struct mystuff { + ... + int data_size; + int data_alloc; + T *data; + ... + }; + +Instead, we store the size of the array with the array itself: + + struct arr { + int size; + int alloc; + T data[]; + }; + struct arr *global_array; + + read side: + rcu_read_lock(); + struct arr *array = atomic_rcu_read(&global_array); + x = i < array->size ? array->data[i] : -1; + rcu_read_unlock(); + return x; + + write side (running under a lock): + if (global_array->size == global_array->alloc) { + /* Creating a new version. */ + new_array = g_malloc(sizeof(struct arr) + + global_array->alloc * 2 * sizeof(T)); + new_array->size = global_array->size; + new_array->alloc = global_array->alloc * 2; + memcpy(new_array->data, global_array->data, + global_array->alloc * sizeof(T)); + + /* Removal phase. */ + old_array = global_array; + atomic_rcu_set(&new_array->data, new_array); + synchronize_rcu(); + + /* Reclamation phase. */ + free(old_array); + } + + +SOURCES +======= + +* Documentation/RCU/ from the Linux kernel |