diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/preempt-locking.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/preempt-locking.txt | 135 |
1 files changed, 135 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/preempt-locking.txt b/Documentation/preempt-locking.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..57883ca2498 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/preempt-locking.txt @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ + Proper Locking Under a Preemptible Kernel: + Keeping Kernel Code Preempt-Safe + Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> + Last Updated: 28 Aug 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. + +You can also use put_cpu() and get_cpu(), which will disable preemption. + + +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_check_resched() if needed, reschedule +preempt_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. + +But keep in mind that 'irqs disabled' is a fundamentally unsafe way of +disabling preemption - any spin_unlock() decreasing the preemption count +to 0 might trigger a reschedule. A simple printk() might trigger a reschedule. +So use this implicit preemption-disabling property only if you know that the +affected codepath does not do any of this. Best policy is to use this only for +small, atomic code that you wrote and which calls no complex functions. + +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. + + +PREVENTING PREEMPTION USING INTERRUPT DISABLING + + +It is possible to prevent a preemption event using local_irq_disable and +local_irq_save. Note, when doing so, you must be very careful to not cause +an event that would set need_resched and result in a preemption check. When +in doubt, rely on locking or explicit preemption disabling. + +Note in 2.5 interrupt disabling is now only per-CPU (e.g. local). + +An additional concern is proper usage of local_irq_disable and local_irq_save. +These may be used to protect from preemption, however, on exit, if preemption +may be enabled, a test to see if preemption is required should be done. If +these are called from the spin_lock and read/write lock macros, the right thing +is done. They may also be called within a spin-lock protected region, however, +if they are ever called outside of this context, a test for preemption should +be made. Do note that calls from interrupt context or bottom half/ tasklets +are also protected by preemption locks and so may use the versions which do +not check preemption. |