123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153 |
- Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Arrays
- Although RCU is more commonly used to protect linked lists, it can
- also be used to protect arrays. Three situations are as follows:
- 1. Hash Tables
- 2. Static Arrays
- 3. Resizeable Arrays
- Each of these three situations involves an RCU-protected pointer to an
- array that is separately indexed. It might be tempting to consider use
- of RCU to instead protect the index into an array, however, this use
- case is -not- supported. The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
- arrays is that compilers can play way too many optimization games with
- integers, which means that the rules governing handling of these indexes
- are far more trouble than they are worth. If RCU-protected indexes into
- arrays prove to be particularly valuable (which they have not thus far),
- explicit cooperation from the compiler will be required to permit them
- to be safely used.
- That aside, each of the three RCU-protected pointer situations are
- described in the following sections.
- Situation 1: Hash Tables
- Hash tables are often implemented as an array, where each array entry
- has a linked-list hash chain. Each hash chain can be protected by RCU
- as described in the listRCU.txt document. This approach also applies
- to other array-of-list situations, such as radix trees.
- Situation 2: Static Arrays
- Static arrays, where the data (rather than a pointer to the data) is
- located in each array element, and where the array is never resized,
- have not been used with RCU. Rik van Riel recommends using seqlock in
- this situation, which would also have minimal read-side overhead as long
- as updates are rare.
- Quick Quiz: Why is it so important that updates be rare when
- using seqlock?
- Situation 3: Resizeable Arrays
- Use of RCU for resizeable arrays is demonstrated by the grow_ary()
- function formerly used by the System V IPC code. The array is used
- to map from semaphore, message-queue, and shared-memory IDs to the data
- structure that represents the corresponding IPC construct. The grow_ary()
- function does not acquire any locks; instead its caller must hold the
- ids->sem semaphore.
- The grow_ary() function, shown below, does some limit checks, allocates a
- new ipc_id_ary, copies the old to the new portion of the new, initializes
- the remainder of the new, updates the ids->entries pointer to point to
- the new array, and invokes ipc_rcu_putref() to free up the old array.
- Note that rcu_assign_pointer() is used to update the ids->entries pointer,
- which includes any memory barriers required on whatever architecture
- you are running on.
- static int grow_ary(struct ipc_ids* ids, int newsize)
- {
- struct ipc_id_ary* new;
- struct ipc_id_ary* old;
- int i;
- int size = ids->entries->size;
- if(newsize > IPCMNI)
- newsize = IPCMNI;
- if(newsize <= size)
- return newsize;
- new = ipc_rcu_alloc(sizeof(struct kern_ipc_perm *)*newsize +
- sizeof(struct ipc_id_ary));
- if(new == NULL)
- return size;
- new->size = newsize;
- memcpy(new->p, ids->entries->p,
- sizeof(struct kern_ipc_perm *)*size +
- sizeof(struct ipc_id_ary));
- for(i=size;i<newsize;i++) {
- new->p[i] = NULL;
- }
- old = ids->entries;
- /*
- * Use rcu_assign_pointer() to make sure the memcpyed
- * contents of the new array are visible before the new
- * array becomes visible.
- */
- rcu_assign_pointer(ids->entries, new);
- ipc_rcu_putref(old);
- return newsize;
- }
- The ipc_rcu_putref() function decrements the array's reference count
- and then, if the reference count has dropped to zero, uses call_rcu()
- to free the array after a grace period has elapsed.
- The array is traversed by the ipc_lock() function. This function
- indexes into the array under the protection of rcu_read_lock(),
- using rcu_dereference() to pick up the pointer to the array so
- that it may later safely be dereferenced -- memory barriers are
- required on the Alpha CPU. Since the size of the array is stored
- with the array itself, there can be no array-size mismatches, so
- a simple check suffices. The pointer to the structure corresponding
- to the desired IPC object is placed in "out", with NULL indicating
- a non-existent entry. After acquiring "out->lock", the "out->deleted"
- flag indicates whether the IPC object is in the process of being
- deleted, and, if not, the pointer is returned.
- struct kern_ipc_perm* ipc_lock(struct ipc_ids* ids, int id)
- {
- struct kern_ipc_perm* out;
- int lid = id % SEQ_MULTIPLIER;
- struct ipc_id_ary* entries;
- rcu_read_lock();
- entries = rcu_dereference(ids->entries);
- if(lid >= entries->size) {
- rcu_read_unlock();
- return NULL;
- }
- out = entries->p[lid];
- if(out == NULL) {
- rcu_read_unlock();
- return NULL;
- }
- spin_lock(&out->lock);
- /* ipc_rmid() may have already freed the ID while ipc_lock
- * was spinning: here verify that the structure is still valid
- */
- if (out->deleted) {
- spin_unlock(&out->lock);
- rcu_read_unlock();
- return NULL;
- }
- return out;
- }
- Answer to Quick Quiz:
- The reason that it is important that updates be rare when
- using seqlock is that frequent updates can livelock readers.
- One way to avoid this problem is to assign a seqlock for
- each array entry rather than to the entire array.
|