Now that quiescent states for newly offlined CPUs are reported either
when that CPU goes offline or at the end of grace-period initialization,
the CPU-hotplug failsafe in the force-quiescent-state code path is no
longer needed.

This commit therefore removes this failsafe.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Now that quiescent-state reporting is fully event-driven, this commit
removes the check for a lost quiescent state from force_qs_rnp().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The main race with the early part of grace-period initialization appears
to be with CPU hotplug.  To more fully open this race window, this commit
moves the rcu_gp_slow() from the beginning of the early initialization
loop to follow that loop, thus widening the race window, especially for
the rcu_node structures that are initialized last.  This commit also
expands rcutree.gp_preinit_delay from 3 to 12, giving the same overall
delay in the grace period, but concentrated in the spot where it will
do the most good.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

RCU should only be waiting on CPUs that were online at the time that the
current grace period started.  Failure to abide by this rule can result
in confusing splats during grace-period cleanup and initialization.
This commit therefore adds a check to RCU-preempt's preempted-task
queuing that checks for waiting on newly onlined CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
hangs can result from the following scenario:

1.	CPU 1 goes offline.

2.	Because CPU 1 is the only CPU in the system blocking the current
	grace period, the grace period ends as soon as
	rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu()'s call to rcu_report_qs_rnp()
	returns.

3.	At this point, the leaf rcu_node structure's ->lock is no longer
	held: rcu_report_qs_rnp() has released it, as it must in order
	to awaken the RCU grace-period kthread.

4.	At this point, that same leaf rcu_node structure's ->qsmaskinitnext
	field still records CPU 1 as being online.  This is absolutely
	necessary because the scheduler uses RCU (in this case on the
	wake-up path while awakening RCU's grace-period kthread), and
	->qsmaskinitnext contains RCU's idea as to which CPUs are online.
	Therefore, invoking rcu_report_qs_rnp() after clearing CPU 1's
	bit from ->qsmaskinitnext would result in a lockdep-RCU splat
	due to RCU being used from an offline CPU.

5.	RCU's grace-period kthread awakens, sees that the old grace period
	has completed and that a new one is needed.  It therefore starts
	a new grace period, but because CPU 1's leaf rcu_node structure's
	->qsmaskinitnext field still shows CPU 1 as being online, this new
	grace period is initialized to wait for a quiescent state from the
	now-offline CPU 1.

6.	Without the fail-safe force-quiescent-state checks, there would
	be no quiescent state from the now-offline CPU 1, which would
	eventually result in RCU CPU stall warnings and memory exhaustion.

It would be good to get rid of the special fail-safe quiescent-state
propagation checks, and thus it would be good to fix things so that
the above scenario cannot happen.  This commit therefore adds a new
->ofl_lock to the rcu_state structure.  This lock is held by rcu_gp_init()
across the applying of buffered online and offline operations to the
rcu_node tree, and it is also held by rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu()
when buffering a new offline operation.  This prevents rcu_gp_init()
from acquiring the leaf rcu_node structure's lock during the interval
between when rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu() invokes rcu_report_qs_rnp(),
which releases ->lock and the re-acquisition of that same lock.
This in turn prevents the failure scenario outlined above, and will
hopefully eventually allow removal of the offline-CPU checks from the
force-quiescent-state code path.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
hangs can result from the following scenario:

1.	A task running on a given CPU is preempted in its RCU read-side
	critical section.

2.	That CPU goes offline, and there are now no online CPUs
	corresponding to that CPU's leaf rcu_node structure.

3.	The rcu_gp_init() function does the first phase of grace-period
	initialization, and sets the aforementioned leaf rcu_node
	structure's ->qsmaskinit field to all zeroes.  Because there
	is a blocked task, it does not propagate the zeroing of either
	->qsmaskinit or ->qsmaskinitnext up the rcu_node tree.

4.	The task resumes on some other CPU and exits its critical section.
	There is no grace period in progress, so the resulting quiescent
	state is not reported up the tree.

5.	The rcu_gp_init() function does the second phase of grace-period
	initialization, which results in the leaf rcu_node structure
	being initialized to expect no further quiescent states, but
	with that structure's parent expecting a quiescent-state report.

	The parent will never receive a quiescent state from this leaf
	rcu_node structure, so the grace period will hang, resulting in
	RCU CPU stall warnings.

It would be good to get rid of the special fail-safe quiescent-state
propagation checks.  This commit therefore checks the leaf rcu_node
structure's ->wait_blkd_tasks field during grace-period initialization.
If this flag is set, the rcu_report_qs_rnp() is invoked to immediately
report the possible quiescent state.  While in the neighborhood, this
commit also report quiescent states for any CPUs that went offline between
the two phases of grace-period initialization, thus reducing grace-period
delays and hopefully eventually allowing removal of offline-CPU checks
from the force-quiescent-state code path.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Consider the following sequence of events in a PREEMPT=y kernel:

1.	All CPUs corresponding to a given leaf rcu_node structure are
	offline.

2.	The first phase of the rcu_gp_init() function's grace-period
	initialization runs, and sets that rcu_node structure's
	->qsmaskinit to zero, as it should.

3.	One of the CPUs corresponding to that rcu_node structure comes
	back online.  Note that because this CPU came online after the
	grace period started, this grace period can safely ignore this
	newly onlined CPU.

4.	A task running on the newly onlined CPU enters an RCU-preempt
	read-side critical section, and is then preempted.  Because
	the corresponding rcu_node structure's ->qsmask is zero,
	rcu_preempt_ctxt_queue() leaves the rcu_node structure's
	->gp_tasks field NULL, as it should.

5.	The rcu_gp_init() function continues running the second phase of
	grace-period initialization.  The ->qsmask field of the parent of
	the aforementioned leaf rcu_node structure is set to not expect
	a quiescent state from the leaf, as is only right and proper.

	However, when rcu_gp_init() reaches the leaf, it invokes
	rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks(), which sees that the leaf's
	->blkd_tasks list is non-empty, and therefore sets the leaf's
	->gp_tasks field to reference the first task on that list.

6.	The grace period ends before the preempted task resumes, which
	is perfectly fine, given that this grace period was under no
	obligation to wait for that task to exit its late-starting
	RCU-preempt read-side critical section.  Unfortunately, the
	leaf's ->gp_tasks field is non-NULL, so rcu_gp_cleanup() splats.
	After all, it appears to rcu_gp_cleanup() that the grace period
	failed to wait for a task that was supposed to be blocking that
	grace period.

This commit avoids this false-positive splat by adding a check of both
->qsmaskinit and ->wait_blkd_tasks to rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks().
If both ->qsmaskinit and ->wait_blkd_tasks are zero, then the task must
have entered its RCU-preempt read-side critical section late (after all,
the CPU that it is running on was not online at that time), which means
that the upper-level rcu_node structure won't be waiting for anything
on the leaf anyway.

If ->wait_blkd_tasks is non-zero, then there is at least one task on
ths rcu_node structure's ->blkd_tasks list whose RCU read-side
critical section predates the current grace period.  If ->qsmaskinit
is non-zero, there is at least one CPU that was online at the start
of the current grace period.  Thus, if both are zero, there is nothing
to wait for.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Consider the following sequence of events in a PREEMPT=y kernel:

1.	All but one of the CPUs corresponding to a given leaf rcu_node
	structure go offline.  Each of these CPUs clears its bit in that
	structure's ->qsmaskinitnext field.

2.	A new grace period starts, and rcu_gp_init() scans the leaf
	rcu_node structures, applying CPU-hotplug changes since the
	start of the previous grace period, including those changes in
	#1 above.  This copies each leaf structure's ->qsmaskinitnext
	to its ->qsmask field, which represents the CPUs that this new
	grace period will wait on.  Each copy operation is done holding
	the corresponding leaf rcu_node structure's ->lock, and at the
	end of this scan, rcu_gp_init() holds no locks.

3.	The last CPU corresponding to #1's leaf rcu_node structure goes
	offline, clearing its bit in that structure's ->qsmaskinitnext
	field, but not touching the ->qsmaskinit field.  Note that
	rcu_gp_init() is not currently holding any locks!  This CPU does
	-not- report a quiescent state because the grace period has not
	yet initialized itself sufficiently to have set any bits in any
	of the leaf rcu_node structures' ->qsmask fields.

4.	The rcu_gp_init() function continues initializing the new grace
	period, copying each leaf rcu_node structure's ->qsmaskinit
	field to its ->qsmask field while holding the corresponding ->lock.
	This sets the ->qsmask bit corresponding to #3's CPU.

5.	Before the grace period ends, #3's CPU comes back online.
	Because te grace period has not yet done any force-quiescent-state
	scans (which would report a quiescent state on behalf of any
	offline CPUs), this CPU's ->qsmask bit is still set.

6.	A task running on the newly onlined CPU is preempted while in
	an RCU read-side critical section.  Because this CPU's ->qsmask
	bit is net, not only does this task queue itself on the leaf
	rcu_node structure's ->blkd_tasks list, it also sets that
	structure's ->gp_tasks pointer to reference it.

7.	The grace period started in #1 above comes to an end.  This
	results in rcu_gp_cleanup() being invoked, which, among other
	things, checks to make sure that there are no tasks blocking the
	just-ended grace period, that is, that all ->gp_tasks pointers
	are NULL.  The ->gp_tasks pointer corresponding to the task
	preempted in #3 above is non-NULL, which results in a splat.

This splat is a false positive.  The task's RCU read-side critical
section cannot have begun before the just-ended grace period because
this would mean either: (1) The CPU came online before the grace period
started, which cannot have happened because the grace period started
before that CPU went offline, or (2) The task started its RCU read-side
critical section on some other CPU, but then it would have had to have
been preempted before migrating to this CPU, which would mean that it
would have instead queued itself on that other CPU's rcu_node structure.
RCU's grace periods thus are working correctly.  Or, more accurately,
that remaining bugs in RCU's grace periods are elsewhere.

This commit eliminates this false positive by adding code to the end
of rcu_cpu_starting() that reports a quiescent state to RCU, which has
the side-effect of clearing that CPU's ->qsmask bit, preventing the
above scenario.  This approach has the added benefit of more promptly
reporting quiescent states corresponding to offline CPUs.  Nevertheless,
this commit does -not- remove the need for the force-quiescent-state
scans to check for offline CPUs, given that a CPU might remain offline
indefinitely.  And without the checks in the force-quiescent-state scans,
the grace period would also persist indefinitely, which could result in
hangs or memory exhaustion.

Note well that the call to rcu_report_qs_rnp() reporting the quiescent
state must come -after- the setting of this CPU's bit in the leaf rcu_node
structure's ->qsmaskinitnext field.  Otherwise, lockdep-RCU will complain
bitterly about quiescent states coming from an offline CPU.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Consider the following sequence of events in a PREEMPT=y kernel:

1.	All CPUs corresponding to a given rcu_node structure go offline.
	A new grace period starts just after the CPU-hotplug code path
	does its synchronize_rcu() for the last CPU, so at least this
	CPU is present in that structure's ->qsmask.

2.	Before the grace period ends, a CPU comes back online, and not
	just any CPU, but the one corresponding to a non-zero bit in
	the leaf rcu_node structure's ->qsmask.

3.	A task running on the newly onlined CPU is preempted while in
	an RCU read-side critical section.  Because this CPU's ->qsmask
	bit is net, not only does this task queue itself on the leaf
	rcu_node structure's ->blkd_tasks list, it also sets that
	structure's ->gp_tasks pointer to reference it.

4.	The grace period started in #1 above comes to an end.  This
	results in rcu_gp_cleanup() being invoked, which, among other
	things, checks to make sure that there are no tasks blocking the
	just-ended grace period, that is, that all ->gp_tasks pointers
	are NULL.  The ->gp_tasks pointer corresponding to the task
	preempted in #3 above is non-NULL, which results in a splat.

This splat is a false positive.  The task's RCU read-side critical
section cannot have begun before the just-ended grace period because
this would mean either: (1) The CPU came online before the grace period
started, which cannot have happened because the grace period started
before that CPU was all the way offline, or (2) The task started its
RCU read-side critical section on some other CPU, but then it would
have had to have been preempted before migrating to this CPU, which
would mean that it would have instead queued itself on that other CPU's
rcu_node structure.

This commit eliminates this false positive by adding code to the end
of rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu() that reports a quiescent state to RCU,
which has the side-effect of clearing that CPU's ->qsmask bit, preventing
the above scenario.  This approach has the added benefit of more promptly
reporting quiescent states corresponding to offline CPUs.

Note well that the call to rcu_report_qs_rnp() reporting the quiescent
state must come -before- the clearing of this CPU's bit in the leaf
rcu_node structure's ->qsmaskinitnext field.  Otherwise, lockdep-RCU
will complain bitterly about quiescent states coming from an offline CPU.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online() function currently checks only the
RCU-sched data structures to determine whether or not RCU believes that a
given CPU is offline.  Unfortunately, there are multiple flavors of RCU,
which means that there is a short window of time during which the various
flavors disagree as to whether or not a given CPU is offline.  This can
result in false-positive lockdep-RCU splats in which some other flavor
of RCU tries to do something based on its view that the CPU is online,
only to get hit with a lockdep-RCU splat because RCU-sched instead
believes that the CPU is offline.

This commit therefore changes rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online() to scan
all RCU flavors and to consider a given CPU to be online if any of the
RCU flavors believe it to be online, thus preventing these false-positive
splats.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The force_qs_rnp() function checks for ->qsmask being all zero, that is,
all CPUs for the current rcu_node structure having already passed through
quiescent states.  But with RCU-preempt, this is not sufficient to report
quiescent states further up the tree, so there are further checks that
can initiate RCU priority boosting and also for races with CPU-hotplug
operations.  However, if neither of these further checks apply, the code
proceeds to carry out a useless scan of an all-zero ->qsmask.

This commit therefore adds code to release the current rcu_node
structure's lock and continue on to the next rcu_node structure, thereby
avoiding this useless scan.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit gets rid of the smp_wmb() in record_gp_stall_check_time()
in favor of an smp_store_release().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit fixes a typo and adds some additional debugging to the
message emitted when a task blocking the current grace period is listed
as blocking it when either that grace period ends or the next grace
period begins.  This commit also reformats the console message for
readability.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

If rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() is invoked on something other than
preemptible RCU or if there are still preempted tasks blocking the
current grace period, something went badly wrong in the caller.
This commit therefore adds WARN_ON_ONCE() to these conditions, but
leaving the legitimate reason for early exit (rnp->qsmask != 0)
unwarned.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Currently, rcu_init_new_rnp() walks up the rcu_node combining tree,
setting bits in the ->qsmaskinit fields on the way up.  It walks up
unconditionally, regardless of the initial state of these bits.  This is
OK because only the corresponding RCU grace-period kthread ever tests
or sets these bits during runtime.  However, it is also pointless, and
it increases both memory and lock contention (albeit only slightly), so
this commit stops the walk as soon as an already-set bit is encountered.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Back in the old days, when grace-period initialization blocked CPU
hotplug, the ->qsmaskinit mask was indeed updated at the time that
a given CPU went offline.  However, with the deferral of these updates
until the beginning of the next grace period in commit 0aa04b05
("rcu: Process offlining and onlining only at grace-period start"),
it is instead ->qsmaskinitnext that gets updated at that time.

This commit therefore updates the obsolete comment.  It also fixes
punctuation while on the topic of comments mentioning ->qsmaskinit.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Commit 0aa04b05 ("rcu: Process offlining and onlining only at
grace-period start") deferred handling of CPU-hotplug events until the
start of the next grace period, but consider the following sequence
of events:

1.	A task is preempted within an RCU-preempt read-side critical
	section.

2.	The CPU that this task was running on goes offline, along with all
	other CPUs sharing the corresponding leaf rcu_node structure.

3.	The task resumes execution.

4.	One of those CPUs comes back online before a new grace period starts.

In step 2, the code in the next rcu_gp_init() invocation will (correctly)
defer removing the leaf rcu_node structure from the upper-level bitmasks,
and will (correctly) set that structure's ->wait_blkd_tasks field.  During
the ensuing interval, RCU will (correctly) track the tasks preempted on
that structure because they must block any subsequent grace period.

In step 3, the code in rcu_read_unlock_special() will (correctly) remove
the task from the leaf rcu_node structure.  From this point forward, RCU
need not pay attention to this structure, at least not until one of the
corresponding CPUs comes back online.

In step 4, the code in the next rcu_gp_init() invocation will
(incorrectly) invoke rcu_init_new_rnp().  This is incorrect because
the corresponding rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() was never invoked.  This is
nevertheless harmless because the upper-level bits are still set.
So, no harm, no foul, right?

At least, all is well until a little further into rcu_gp_init()
invocation, which will notice that there are no longer any tasks blocked
on the leaf rcu_node structure, conclude that there is no longer anything
left over from step 2's offline operation, and will therefore invoke
rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp().  But this invocation of rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp()
is for the beginning of the earlier offline interval, and the previous
invocation of rcu_init_new_rnp() is for the end of that same interval.
That is right, they are invoked out of order.

That cannot be good, can it?

It turns out that this is not a (correctness!) problem because
rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() checks to see if any of the corresponding CPUs
are online, and refuses to do anything if so.  In other words, in the
case where rcu_init_new_rnp() and rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() execute out of
order, they both have no effect.

But this is at best an accident waiting to happen.

This commit therefore adds logic to rcu_gp_init() so that
rcu_init_new_rnp() and rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() are always invoked in
order, and so that neither are invoked at all in cases where RCU had to
pay attention to the leaf rcu_node structure during the entire time that
all corresponding CPUs were offline.

And, while in the area, this commit reduces confusion by using formal
parameters rather than local variables that just happen to have the same
value at that particular point in the code.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There's no need to keep checking the same starting node for whether a
grace period is in progress as we advance up the funnel lock loop. Its
sufficient if we just checked it in the start, and then subsequently
checked the internal nodes as we advanced up the combining tree. This
also makes sense because the grace-period updates propogate from the
root to the leaf, so there's a chance we may find a grace period has
started as we advance up, lets check for the same.
Reported-by: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The funnel locking loop in rcu_start_this_gp uses rcu_root as a
temporary variable while walking the combining tree. This causes a
tiresome exercise of a code reader reminding themselves that rcu_root
may not be root. Lets just call it rnp, and rename other variables as
well to be more appropriate.

Original patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10396577/Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ paulmck: Fix name in comment as well. ]

The name 'c' is used for variables and parameters holding the requested
grace-period sequence number.  However it is no longer very meaningful
given the conversions from ->gpnum and (especially) ->completed to
->gp_seq. This commit therefore renames 'c' to 'gp_seq_req'.

Previous patch discussion is at:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10396579/Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The rcu_data structure's ->gpwrap indicator is currently reset only
when the CPU in question detects a new grace period.  This is in theory
sufficient because any CPU that has been out of action for long enough
that its ->gpwrap indicator is set is guaranteed to see both the end
of an old grace period and the start of a new one.

However, the current code leaves a short window during which the ->gpwrap
indicator has been reset but the corresponding ->gp_seq counter has not
yet been brought up to date.  This is harmless because interrupts are
disabled, but it is likely to (at the very least) cause confusion.

This commit therefore moves the resetting of ->gpwrap to follow the
updating of ->gp_seq.  While in the area, it also resets ->gp_seq_needed.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The new ->gq_seq grace-period sequence numbers must be shifted down,
which give artifacts when these numbers wrap.  This commit therefore
enables rcutorture and rcuperf to handle grace-period sequence numbers
even if they do wrap.  It does this by allowing a special subtraction
function to be specified, and this function subtracts before shifting.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

In the old days of ->gpnum and ->completed, the code requesting a new
grace period checked to see if that grace period had already started,
bailing early if so.  The new-age ->gp_seq approach instead checks
whether the grace period has already finished.  A compensating change
pushed the requested grace period down to the bottom of the tree, thus
reducing lock contention and even eliminating it in some cases.  But why
not further reduce contention, especially on large systems, by doing both,
especially given that the cost of doing both is extremely small?

This commit therefore adds a new rcu_seq_started() function that checks
whether a specified grace period has already started.  It then uses
this new function in place of rcu_seq_done() in the rcu_start_this_gp()
function's funnel locking code.
Reported-by: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The "cpustart" trace event shows a stale gp_seq. This is because it uses
rdp->gp_seq, which is updated only at the end of the __note_gp_changes()
function. This commit therefore instead uses rnp->gp_seq.

An alternative fix would be to update rdp->gp_seq earlier, but this would
break RCU's detection of the beginning of a new-to-this-CPU grace period.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Currently Tree RCU's clean-up code emits a "CleanupMore" trace event in
response to late-arriving grace-period requests even if the grace period
was already requested. This makes "CleanupMore" show up an extra time (in
addition to once for each rcu_node structure that was previously marked
with the request), and for no good reason.  This commit therefore avoids
emitting this trace message unless the the only request for this next
grace period arrived during or after the cleanup scan of the rcu_node
structures.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The old grace-period start code would acquire only the leaf's rcu_node
structure's ->lock if that structure believed that a grace period was
in progress.  The new code advances to the leaf's parent in this case,
needlessly acquiring then leaf's parent's ->lock.  This commit therefore
checks the grace-period state after marking the leaf with the need for
the specified grace period, and if the leaf believes that a grace period
is in progress, takes an early exit.
Reported-by: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ paulmck: Add "Startedleaf" tracing as suggested by Joel Fernandes. ]

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Now that the rcu_data structure contains ->gp_seq_needed, create an
rcu_accelerate_cbs_unlocked() helper function that locklessly checks to
see if new callbacks' required grace period has already been requested.
If so, update the callback list locally and again locklessly.  (Though
interrupts must be and are disabled to avoid racing with conflicting
updates in interrupt handlers.)

Otherwise, call rcu_accelerate_cbs() as before.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Now that everything has been converted to use ->gp_seq instead of
->gpnum and ->completed, this commit removes ->gpnum and ->completed.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes the rcu_fqs tracepoint use ->gp_seq instead of ->gpnum.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes the rcu_quiescent_state_report tracepoint use ->gp_seq
instead of ->gpnum.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes the rcu_unlock_preempted_task tracepoint use ->gp_seq
instead of ->gpnum.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes the rcu_preempt_task tracepoint use ->gp_seq instead
of ->gpnum.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes the rcu_grace_period_init tracepoint use gp_seq instead
of ->gpnum.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes the rcu_future_grace_period tracepoint use gp_seq
instead of ->gpnum and ->completed.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes the rcu_grace_period tracepoint use gp_seq instead
of ->gpnum or ->completed.  It also introduces a "cpuofl-bgp" string to
less obscurely indicate when a CPU has gone offline while a grace period
is waiting on it.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

This commit makes rcu_nocb_wait_gp() check rdp->gp_seq_needed to see
if the current CPU already knows about the needed grace period having
already been requested.  If so, it avoids acquiring the corresponding
leaf rcu_node structure's ->lock, thus decreasing contention.  This
optimization is intended for cases where either multiple leader rcuo
kthreads are running on the same CPU or these kthreads are running on
a non-offloaded (e.g., housekeeping) CPU.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ paulmck: Move lock release past "if" as suggested by Joel Fernandes. ]
[ paulmck: Fix caching of furthest-future requested grace period. ]

One problem with the ->need_future_gp[] array is that the grace-period
assignment of each element changes as the grace periods complete.
This means that it is necessary to hold a lock when checking this
array to learn if a given grace period has already been requested.
This increase lock contention, which is the opposite of helpful.
This commit therefore replaces the ->need_future_gp[] with a single
->gp_seq_needed value and keeps it updated in the rcu_data structure.

This will enable reliable lockless checking of whether or not a given
grace period has already been requested.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>