diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst deleted file mode 100644 index a5f2ff8fc54c..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,165 +0,0 @@ -.. _array_rcu_doc: - -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. :ref:`Hash Tables ` - -2. :ref:`Static Arrays ` - -3. :ref:`Resizable 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. - -.. _hash_tables: - -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 listRCU.rst. This approach also applies to other -array-of-list situations, such as radix trees. - -.. _static_arrays: - -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? - -:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz ` - -.. _resizable_arrays: - -Situation 3: Resizable Arrays ------------------------------- - -Use of RCU for resizable 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;ip[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_quick_quiz_seqlock: - -Answer to Quick Quiz: - Why is it so important that updates be rare when using seqlock? - - 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. diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst index e703d3dbe60c..84a79903f6a8 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ RCU concepts .. toctree:: :maxdepth: 3 - arrayRCU checklist lockdep lockdep-splat