Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt

Review Checklist for RCU Patches


This document contains a checklist for producing and reviewing patches
that make use of RCU.  Violating any of the rules listed below will
result in the same sorts of problems that leaving out a locking primitive
would cause.  This list is based on experiences reviewing such patches
over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!

0.	Is RCU being applied to a read-mostly situation?  If the data
	structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then
	you should strongly consider some other approach, unless
	detailed performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless
	the right tool for the job.

	The other exception would be where performance is not an issue,
	and RCU provides a simpler implementation.  An example of this
	situation is the dynamic NMI code in the Linux 2.6 kernel,
	at least on architectures where NMIs are rare.

1.	Does the update code have proper mutual exclusion?

	RCU does allow -readers- to run (almost) naked, but -writers- must
	still use some sort of mutual exclusion, such as:

	a.	locking,
	b.	atomic operations, or
	c.	restricting updates to a single task.

	If you choose #b, be prepared to describe how you have handled
	memory barriers on weakly ordered machines (pretty much all of
	them -- even x86 allows reads to be reordered), and be prepared
	to explain why this added complexity is worthwhile.  If you
	choose #c, be prepared to explain how this single task does not
	become a major bottleneck on big multiprocessor machines (for
	example, if the task is updating information relating to itself
	that other tasks can read, there by definition can be no
	bottleneck).

2.	Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of
	rcu_read_lock() and friends?  These primitives are needed
	to suppress preemption (or bottom halves, in the case of
	rcu_read_lock_bh()) in the read-side critical sections,
	and are also an excellent aid to readability.

3.	Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?

	The whole point of RCU is to permit readers to run without
	any locks or atomic operations.  This means that readers will
	be running while updates are in progress.  There are a number
	of ways to handle this concurrency, depending on the situation:

	a.	Make updates appear atomic to readers.  For example,
		pointer updates to properly aligned fields will appear
		atomic, as will individual atomic primitives.  Operations
		performed under a lock and sequences of multiple atomic
		primitives will -not- appear to be atomic.

		This is almost always the best approach.

	b.	Carefully order the updates and the reads so that
		readers see valid data at all phases of the update.
		This is often more difficult than it sounds, especially
		given modern CPUs' tendency to reorder memory references.
		One must usually liberally sprinkle memory barriers
		(smp_wmb(), smp_rmb(), smp_mb()) through the code,
		making it difficult to understand and to test.

		It is usually better to group the changing data into
		a separate structure, so that the change may be made
		to appear atomic by updating a pointer to reference
		a new structure containing updated values.

4.	Weakly ordered CPUs pose special challenges.  Almost all CPUs
	are weakly ordered -- even i386 CPUs allow reads to be reordered.
	RCU code must take all of the following measures to prevent
	memory-corruption problems:

	a.	Readers must maintain proper ordering of their memory
		accesses.  The rcu_dereference() primitive ensures that
		the CPU picks up the pointer before it picks up the data
		that the pointer points to.  This really is necessary
		on Alpha CPUs.	If you don't believe me, see:

			http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/wiz_2637.html

		The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent
		documentation aid, letting the person reading the code
		know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU.

		The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various
		"_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such as the
		list_for_each_entry_rcu().

	b.	If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu()
		and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order
		to prevent weakly ordered machines from misordering
		structure initialization and pointer planting.
		Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used, the
		hlist_add_head_rcu() primitive is required.

	c.	If the list macros are being used, the list_del_rcu()
		primitive must be used to keep list_del()'s pointer
		poisoning from inflicting toxic effects on concurrent
		readers.  Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used,
		the hlist_del_rcu() primitive is required.

		The list_replace_rcu() primitive may be used to
		replace an old structure with a new one in an
		RCU-protected list.

	d.	Updates must ensure that initialization of a given
		structure happens before pointers to that structure are
		publicized.  Use the rcu_assign_pointer() primitive
		when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can
		be traversed by an RCU read-side critical section.

5.	If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh(),
	is used, the callback function must be written to be called
	from softirq context.  In particular, it cannot block.

6.	Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from
	any sort of irq context.

7.	If the updater uses call_rcu(), then the corresponding readers
	must use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock().  If the updater
	uses call_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must use
	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().  Mixing things up
	will result in confusion and broken kernels.

	One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
	may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh()
	in cases where local bottom halves are already known to be
	disabled, for example, in irq or softirq context.  Commenting
	such cases is a must, of course!  And the jury is still out on
	whether the increased speed is worth it.

8.	Although synchronize_rcu() is a bit slower than is call_rcu(),
	it usually results in simpler code.  So, unless update performance
	is important or the updaters cannot block, synchronize_rcu()
	should be used in preference to call_rcu().

9.	All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
	list_for_each_rcu(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(),
	list_for_each_continue_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(),
	must be within an RCU read-side critical section.  RCU
	read-side critical sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock()
	and rcu_read_unlock(), or by similar primitives such as
	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().

	Use of the _rcu() list-traversal primitives outside of an
	RCU read-side critical section causes no harm other than
	a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs and some
	confusion on the part of people trying to read the code.

	Another way of thinking of this is "If you are holding the
	lock that prevents the data structure from changing, why do
	you also need RCU-based protection?"  That said, there may
	well be situations where use of the _rcu() list-traversal
	primitives while the update-side lock is held results in
	simpler and more maintainable code.  The jury is still out
	on this question.

10.	Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
	you -must- use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.
	Failing to do so will break Alpha and confuse people reading
	your code.

11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
	critical sections complete.  It does -not- necessarily guarantee
	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
	code, or idle loops will complete.  Therefore, if you do not have
	rcu_read_lock()-protected read-side critical sections, do -not-
	use synchronize_rcu().

	If you want to wait for some of these other things, you might
	instead need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched().
1	Review Checklist for RCU Patches
2
3
4	This document contains a checklist for producing and reviewing patches
5	that make use of RCU. Violating any of the rules listed below will
6	result in the same sorts of problems that leaving out a locking primitive
7	would cause. This list is based on experiences reviewing such patches
8	over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
9
10	0. Is RCU being applied to a read-mostly situation? If the data
11	structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then
12	you should strongly consider some other approach, unless
13	detailed performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless
14	the right tool for the job.
15
16	The other exception would be where performance is not an issue,
17	and RCU provides a simpler implementation. An example of this
18	situation is the dynamic NMI code in the Linux 2.6 kernel,
19	at least on architectures where NMIs are rare.
20
21	1. Does the update code have proper mutual exclusion?
22
23	RCU does allow -readers- to run (almost) naked, but -writers- must
24	still use some sort of mutual exclusion, such as:
25
26	a. locking,
27	b. atomic operations, or
28	c. restricting updates to a single task.
29
30	If you choose #b, be prepared to describe how you have handled
31	memory barriers on weakly ordered machines (pretty much all of
32	them -- even x86 allows reads to be reordered), and be prepared
33	to explain why this added complexity is worthwhile. If you
34	choose #c, be prepared to explain how this single task does not
35	become a major bottleneck on big multiprocessor machines (for
36	example, if the task is updating information relating to itself
37	that other tasks can read, there by definition can be no
38	bottleneck).
39
40	2. Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of
41	rcu_read_lock() and friends? These primitives are needed
42	to suppress preemption (or bottom halves, in the case of
43	rcu_read_lock_bh()) in the read-side critical sections,
44	and are also an excellent aid to readability.
45
46	3. Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?
47
48	The whole point of RCU is to permit readers to run without
49	any locks or atomic operations. This means that readers will
50	be running while updates are in progress. There are a number
51	of ways to handle this concurrency, depending on the situation:
52
53	a. Make updates appear atomic to readers. For example,
54	pointer updates to properly aligned fields will appear
55	atomic, as will individual atomic primitives. Operations
56	performed under a lock and sequences of multiple atomic
57	primitives will -not- appear to be atomic.
58
59	This is almost always the best approach.
60
61	b. Carefully order the updates and the reads so that
62	readers see valid data at all phases of the update.
63	This is often more difficult than it sounds, especially
64	given modern CPUs' tendency to reorder memory references.
65	One must usually liberally sprinkle memory barriers
66	(smp_wmb(), smp_rmb(), smp_mb()) through the code,
67	making it difficult to understand and to test.
68
69	It is usually better to group the changing data into
70	a separate structure, so that the change may be made
71	to appear atomic by updating a pointer to reference
72	a new structure containing updated values.
73
74	4. Weakly ordered CPUs pose special challenges. Almost all CPUs
75	are weakly ordered -- even i386 CPUs allow reads to be reordered.
76	RCU code must take all of the following measures to prevent
77	memory-corruption problems:
78
79	a. Readers must maintain proper ordering of their memory
80	accesses. The rcu_dereference() primitive ensures that
81	the CPU picks up the pointer before it picks up the data
82	that the pointer points to. This really is necessary
83	on Alpha CPUs. If you don't believe me, see:
84
85	http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/wiz_2637.html
86
87	The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent
88	documentation aid, letting the person reading the code
89	know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU.
90
91	The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various
92	"_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such as the
93	list_for_each_entry_rcu().
94
95	b. If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu()
96	and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order
97	to prevent weakly ordered machines from misordering
98	structure initialization and pointer planting.
99	Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used, the
100	hlist_add_head_rcu() primitive is required.
101
102	c. If the list macros are being used, the list_del_rcu()
103	primitive must be used to keep list_del()'s pointer
104	poisoning from inflicting toxic effects on concurrent
105	readers. Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used,
106	the hlist_del_rcu() primitive is required.
107
108	The list_replace_rcu() primitive may be used to
109	replace an old structure with a new one in an
110	RCU-protected list.
111
112	d. Updates must ensure that initialization of a given
113	structure happens before pointers to that structure are
114	publicized. Use the rcu_assign_pointer() primitive
115	when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can
116	be traversed by an RCU read-side critical section.
117
118	5. If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh(),
119	is used, the callback function must be written to be called
120	from softirq context. In particular, it cannot block.
121
122	6. Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from
123	any sort of irq context.
124
125	7. If the updater uses call_rcu(), then the corresponding readers
126	must use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(). If the updater
127	uses call_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must use
128	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(). Mixing things up
129	will result in confusion and broken kernels.
130
131	One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
132	may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh()
133	in cases where local bottom halves are already known to be
134	disabled, for example, in irq or softirq context. Commenting
135	such cases is a must, of course! And the jury is still out on
136	whether the increased speed is worth it.
137
138	8. Although synchronize_rcu() is a bit slower than is call_rcu(),
139	it usually results in simpler code. So, unless update performance
140	is important or the updaters cannot block, synchronize_rcu()
141	should be used in preference to call_rcu().
142
143	9. All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
144	list_for_each_rcu(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(),
145	list_for_each_continue_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(),
146	must be within an RCU read-side critical section. RCU
147	read-side critical sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock()
148	and rcu_read_unlock(), or by similar primitives such as
149	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().
150
151	Use of the _rcu() list-traversal primitives outside of an
152	RCU read-side critical section causes no harm other than
153	a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs and some
154	confusion on the part of people trying to read the code.
155
156	Another way of thinking of this is "If you are holding the
157	lock that prevents the data structure from changing, why do
158	you also need RCU-based protection?" That said, there may
159	well be situations where use of the _rcu() list-traversal
160	primitives while the update-side lock is held results in
161	simpler and more maintainable code. The jury is still out
162	on this question.
163
164	10. Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
165	you -must- use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.
166	Failing to do so will break Alpha and confuse people reading
167	your code.
168
169	11. Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
170	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
171	critical sections complete. It does -not- necessarily guarantee
172	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
173	code, or idle loops will complete. Therefore, if you do not have
174	rcu_read_lock()-protected read-side critical sections, do -not-
175	use synchronize_rcu().
176
177	If you want to wait for some of these other things, you might
178	instead need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched().