Commit 98756221 authored by Robert Love's avatar Robert Love Committed by Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] preemptible kernel documentation, etc

Linus,

The attached patch adds a Documentation/preempt-locking.txt file which
describes the new locking rules wrt preemptive kernels (ie, watch
per-CPU data, etc).  It also updates a CREDITS entry and adds some
comments.

Patch is against 2.5.4-pre5, please apply.

	Robert Love
parent 01a50723
......@@ -990,8 +990,8 @@ S: Brazil
N: Nigel Gamble
E: nigel@nrg.org
E: nigel@sgi.com
D: Interrupt-driven printer driver
D: Preemptible kernel
S: 120 Alley Way
S: Mountain View, California 94040
S: USA
......
Proper Locking Under a Preemptible Kernel:
Keeping Kernel Code Preempt-Safe
Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Last Updated: 22 Jan 2002
INTRODUCTION
A preemptible kernel creates new locking issues. The issues are the same as
those under SMP: concurrency and reentrancy. Thankfully, the Linux preemptible
kernel model leverages existing SMP locking mechanisms. Thus, the kernel
requires explicit additional locking for very few additional situations.
This document is for all kernel hackers. Developing code in the kernel
requires protecting these situations.
RULE #1: Per-CPU data structures need explicit protection
Two similar problems arise. An example code snippet:
struct this_needs_locking tux[NR_CPUS];
tux[smp_processor_id()] = some_value;
/* task is preempted here... */
something = tux[smp_processor_id()];
First, since the data is per-CPU, it may not have explicit SMP locking, but
require it otherwise. Second, when a preempted task is finally rescheduled,
the previous value of smp_processor_id may not equal the current. You must
protect these situations by disabling preemption around them.
RULE #2: CPU state must be protected.
Under preemption, the state of the CPU must be protected. This is arch-
dependent, but includes CPU structures and state not preserved over a context
switch. For example, on x86, entering and exiting FPU mode is now a critical
section that must occur while preemption is disabled. Think what would happen
if the kernel is executing a floating-point instruction and is then preempted.
Remember, the kernel does not save FPU state except for user tasks. Therefore,
upon preemption, the FPU registers will be sold to the lowest bidder. Thus,
preemption must be disabled around such regions.
Note, some FPU functions are already explicitly preempt safe. For example,
kernel_fpu_begin and kernel_fpu_end will disable and enable preemption.
However, math_state_restore must be called with preemption disabled.
RULE #3: Lock acquire and release must be performed by same task
A lock acquired in one task must be released by the same task. This
means you can't do oddball things like acquire a lock and go off to
play while another task releases it. If you want to do something
like this, acquire and release the task in the same code path and
have the caller wait on an event by the other task.
SOLUTION
Data protection under preemption is achieved by disabling preemption for the
duration of the critical region.
preempt_enable() decrement the preempt counter
preempt_disable() increment the preempt counter
preempt_enable_no_resched() decrement, but do not immediately preempt
preempt_get_count() return the preempt counter
The functions are nestable. In other words, you can call preempt_disable
n-times in a code path, and preemption will not be reenabled until the n-th
call to preempt_enable. The preempt statements define to nothing if
preemption is not enabled.
Note that you do not need to explicitly prevent preemption if you are holding
any locks or interrupts are disabled, since preemption is implicitly disabled
in those cases.
Example:
cpucache_t *cc; /* this is per-CPU */
preempt_disable();
cc = cc_data(searchp);
if (cc && cc->avail) {
__free_block(searchp, cc_entry(cc), cc->avail);
cc->avail = 0;
}
preempt_enable();
return 0;
Notice how the preemption statements must encompass every reference of the
critical variables. Another example:
int buf[NR_CPUS];
set_cpu_val(buf);
if (buf[smp_processor_id()] == -1) printf(KERN_INFO "wee!\n");
spin_lock(&buf_lock);
/* ... */
This code is not preempt-safe, but see how easily we can fix it by simply
moving the spin_lock up two lines.
......@@ -1239,6 +1239,14 @@ P: Michal Ostrowski
M: mostrows@styx.uwaterloo.ca
S: Maintained
PREEMPTIBLE KERNEL
P: Robert Love
M: rml@tech9.net
L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
L: kpreempt-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
W: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/preempt-kernel
S: Supported
PROMISE DC4030 CACHING DISK CONTROLLER DRIVER
P: Peter Denison
M: promise@pnd-pc.demon.co.uk
......
......@@ -49,7 +49,8 @@
* constructors and destructors are called without any locking.
* Several members in kmem_cache_t and slab_t never change, they
* are accessed without any locking.
* The per-cpu arrays are never accessed from the wrong cpu, no locking.
* The per-cpu arrays are never accessed from the wrong cpu, no locking,
* and local interrupts are disabled so slab code is preempt-safe.
* The non-constant members are protected with a per-cache irq spinlock.
*
* Further notes from the original documentation:
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment