documentation: Fix some inconsistencies in RTFP.txt
Some of the early history leaves out some citations and vice versa. This commit fixes these up. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
9b2b3bf531
commit
e4696a1d3b
|
@ -31,6 +31,14 @@ has lapsed, so this approach may be used in non-GPL software, if desired.
|
|||
(In contrast, implementation of RCU is permitted only in software licensed
|
||||
under either GPL or LGPL. Sorry!!!)
|
||||
|
||||
In 1987, Rashid et al. described lazy TLB-flush [RichardRashid87a].
|
||||
At first glance, this has nothing to do with RCU, but nevertheless
|
||||
this paper helped inspire the update-side batching used in the later
|
||||
RCU implementation in DYNIX/ptx. In 1988, Barbara Liskov published
|
||||
a description of Argus that noted that use of out-of-date values can
|
||||
be tolerated in some situations. Thus, this paper provides some early
|
||||
theoretical justification for use of stale data.
|
||||
|
||||
In 1990, Pugh [Pugh90] noted that explicitly tracking which threads
|
||||
were reading a given data structure permitted deferred free to operate
|
||||
in the presence of non-terminating threads. However, this explicit
|
||||
|
@ -41,11 +49,11 @@ providing a fine-grained locking design, however, it would be interesting
|
|||
to see how much of the performance advantage reported in 1990 remains
|
||||
today.
|
||||
|
||||
At about this same time, Adams [Adams91] described ``chaotic relaxation'',
|
||||
where the normal barriers between successive iterations of convergent
|
||||
numerical algorithms are relaxed, so that iteration $n$ might use
|
||||
data from iteration $n-1$ or even $n-2$. This introduces error,
|
||||
which typically slows convergence and thus increases the number of
|
||||
At about this same time, Andrews [Andrews91textbook] described ``chaotic
|
||||
relaxation'', where the normal barriers between successive iterations
|
||||
of convergent numerical algorithms are relaxed, so that iteration $n$
|
||||
might use data from iteration $n-1$ or even $n-2$. This introduces
|
||||
error, which typically slows convergence and thus increases the number of
|
||||
iterations required. However, this increase is sometimes more than made
|
||||
up for by a reduction in the number of expensive barrier operations,
|
||||
which are otherwise required to synchronize the threads at the end
|
||||
|
@ -55,7 +63,8 @@ is thus inapplicable to most data structures in operating-system kernels.
|
|||
|
||||
In 1992, Henry (now Alexia) Massalin completed a dissertation advising
|
||||
parallel programmers to defer processing when feasible to simplify
|
||||
synchronization. RCU makes extremely heavy use of this advice.
|
||||
synchronization [HMassalinPhD]. RCU makes extremely heavy use of
|
||||
this advice.
|
||||
|
||||
In 1993, Jacobson [Jacobson93] verbally described what is perhaps the
|
||||
simplest deferred-free technique: simply waiting a fixed amount of time
|
||||
|
@ -90,27 +99,29 @@ mechanism, which is quite similar to RCU [Gamsa99]. These operating
|
|||
systems made pervasive use of RCU in place of "existence locks", which
|
||||
greatly simplifies locking hierarchies and helps avoid deadlocks.
|
||||
|
||||
2001 saw the first RCU presentation involving Linux [McKenney01a]
|
||||
at OLS. The resulting abundance of RCU patches was presented the
|
||||
following year [McKenney02a], and use of RCU in dcache was first
|
||||
described that same year [Linder02a].
|
||||
The year 2000 saw an email exchange that would likely have
|
||||
led to yet another independent invention of something like RCU
|
||||
[RustyRussell2000a,RustyRussell2000b]. Instead, 2001 saw the first
|
||||
RCU presentation involving Linux [McKenney01a] at OLS. The resulting
|
||||
abundance of RCU patches was presented the following year [McKenney02a],
|
||||
and use of RCU in dcache was first described that same year [Linder02a].
|
||||
|
||||
Also in 2002, Michael [Michael02b,Michael02a] presented "hazard-pointer"
|
||||
techniques that defer the destruction of data structures to simplify
|
||||
non-blocking synchronization (wait-free synchronization, lock-free
|
||||
synchronization, and obstruction-free synchronization are all examples of
|
||||
non-blocking synchronization). In particular, this technique eliminates
|
||||
locking, reduces contention, reduces memory latency for readers, and
|
||||
parallelizes pipeline stalls and memory latency for writers. However,
|
||||
these techniques still impose significant read-side overhead in the
|
||||
form of memory barriers. Researchers at Sun worked along similar lines
|
||||
in the same timeframe [HerlihyLM02]. These techniques can be thought
|
||||
of as inside-out reference counts, where the count is represented by the
|
||||
number of hazard pointers referencing a given data structure rather than
|
||||
the more conventional counter field within the data structure itself.
|
||||
The key advantage of inside-out reference counts is that they can be
|
||||
stored in immortal variables, thus allowing races between access and
|
||||
deletion to be avoided.
|
||||
non-blocking synchronization). The corresponding journal article appeared
|
||||
in 2004 [MagedMichael04a]. This technique eliminates locking, reduces
|
||||
contention, reduces memory latency for readers, and parallelizes pipeline
|
||||
stalls and memory latency for writers. However, these techniques still
|
||||
impose significant read-side overhead in the form of memory barriers.
|
||||
Researchers at Sun worked along similar lines in the same timeframe
|
||||
[HerlihyLM02]. These techniques can be thought of as inside-out reference
|
||||
counts, where the count is represented by the number of hazard pointers
|
||||
referencing a given data structure rather than the more conventional
|
||||
counter field within the data structure itself. The key advantage
|
||||
of inside-out reference counts is that they can be stored in immortal
|
||||
variables, thus allowing races between access and deletion to be avoided.
|
||||
|
||||
By the same token, RCU can be thought of as a "bulk reference count",
|
||||
where some form of reference counter covers all reference by a given CPU
|
||||
|
@ -123,8 +134,10 @@ can be thought of in other terms as well.
|
|||
|
||||
In 2003, the K42 group described how RCU could be used to create
|
||||
hot-pluggable implementations of operating-system functions [Appavoo03a].
|
||||
Later that year saw a paper describing an RCU implementation of System
|
||||
V IPC [Arcangeli03], and an introduction to RCU in Linux Journal
|
||||
Later that year saw a paper describing an RCU implementation
|
||||
of System V IPC [Arcangeli03] (following up on a suggestion by
|
||||
Hugh Dickins [Dickins02a] and an implementation by Mingming Cao
|
||||
[MingmingCao2002IPCRCU]), and an introduction to RCU in Linux Journal
|
||||
[McKenney03a].
|
||||
|
||||
2004 has seen a Linux-Journal article on use of RCU in dcache
|
||||
|
@ -383,6 +396,21 @@ for Programming Languages and Operating Systems}"
|
|||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@phdthesis{HMassalinPhD
|
||||
,author="H. Massalin"
|
||||
,title="Synthesis: An Efficient Implementation of Fundamental Operating
|
||||
System Services"
|
||||
,school="Columbia University"
|
||||
,address="New York, NY"
|
||||
,year="1992"
|
||||
,annotation={
|
||||
Mondo optimizing compiler.
|
||||
Wait-free stuff.
|
||||
Good advice: defer work to avoid synchronization. See page 90
|
||||
(PDF page 106), Section 5.4, fourth bullet point.
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@unpublished{Jacobson93
|
||||
,author="Van Jacobson"
|
||||
,title="Avoid Read-Side Locking Via Delayed Free"
|
||||
|
@ -671,6 +699,20 @@ Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell and Dipankar Sarma and Maneesh Soni"
|
|||
[Viewed October 18, 2004]"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@conference{Michael02b
|
||||
,author="Maged M. Michael"
|
||||
,title="High Performance Dynamic Lock-Free Hash Tables and List-Based Sets"
|
||||
,Year="2002"
|
||||
,Month="August"
|
||||
,booktitle="{Proceedings of the 14\textsuperscript{th} Annual ACM
|
||||
Symposium on Parallel
|
||||
Algorithms and Architecture}"
|
||||
,pages="73-82"
|
||||
,annotation={
|
||||
Like the title says...
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@Conference{Linder02a
|
||||
,Author="Hanna Linder and Dipankar Sarma and Maneesh Soni"
|
||||
,Title="Scalability of the Directory Entry Cache"
|
||||
|
@ -727,6 +769,24 @@ Andrea Arcangeli and Andi Kleen and Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell"
|
|||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@conference{Michael02a
|
||||
,author="Maged M. Michael"
|
||||
,title="Safe Memory Reclamation for Dynamic Lock-Free Objects Using Atomic
|
||||
Reads and Writes"
|
||||
,Year="2002"
|
||||
,Month="August"
|
||||
,booktitle="{Proceedings of the 21\textsuperscript{st} Annual ACM
|
||||
Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing}"
|
||||
,pages="21-30"
|
||||
,annotation={
|
||||
Each thread keeps an array of pointers to items that it is
|
||||
currently referencing. Sort of an inside-out garbage collection
|
||||
mechanism, but one that requires the accessing code to explicitly
|
||||
state its needs. Also requires read-side memory barriers on
|
||||
most architectures.
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@unpublished{Dickins02a
|
||||
,author="Hugh Dickins"
|
||||
,title="Use RCU for System-V IPC"
|
||||
|
@ -735,6 +795,17 @@ Andrea Arcangeli and Andi Kleen and Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell"
|
|||
,note="private communication"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@InProceedings{HerlihyLM02
|
||||
,author={Maurice Herlihy and Victor Luchangco and Mark Moir}
|
||||
,title="The Repeat Offender Problem: A Mechanism for Supporting Dynamic-Sized,
|
||||
Lock-Free Data Structures"
|
||||
,booktitle={Proceedings of 16\textsuperscript{th} International
|
||||
Symposium on Distributed Computing}
|
||||
,year=2002
|
||||
,month="October"
|
||||
,pages="339-353"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@unpublished{Sarma02b
|
||||
,Author="Dipankar Sarma"
|
||||
,Title="Some dcache\_rcu benchmark numbers"
|
||||
|
@ -749,6 +820,19 @@ Andrea Arcangeli and Andi Kleen and Orran Krieger and Rusty Russell"
|
|||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@unpublished{MingmingCao2002IPCRCU
|
||||
,Author="Mingming Cao"
|
||||
,Title="[PATCH]updated ipc lock patch"
|
||||
,month="October"
|
||||
,year="2002"
|
||||
,note="Available:
|
||||
\url{https://lkml.org/lkml/2002/10/24/262}
|
||||
[Viewed February 15, 2014]"
|
||||
,annotation={
|
||||
Mingming Cao's patch to introduce RCU to SysV IPC.
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@unpublished{LinusTorvalds2003a
|
||||
,Author="Linus Torvalds"
|
||||
,Title="Re: {[PATCH]} small fixes in brlock.h"
|
||||
|
@ -982,6 +1066,23 @@ Realtime Applications"
|
|||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@article{MagedMichael04a
|
||||
,author="Maged M. Michael"
|
||||
,title="Hazard Pointers: Safe Memory Reclamation for Lock-Free Objects"
|
||||
,Year="2004"
|
||||
,Month="June"
|
||||
,journal="IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems"
|
||||
,volume="15"
|
||||
,number="6"
|
||||
,pages="491-504"
|
||||
,url="Available:
|
||||
\url{http://www.research.ibm.com/people/m/michael/ieeetpds-2004.pdf}
|
||||
[Viewed March 1, 2005]"
|
||||
,annotation={
|
||||
New canonical hazard-pointer citation.
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@phdthesis{PaulEdwardMcKenneyPhD
|
||||
,author="Paul E. McKenney"
|
||||
,title="Exploiting Deferred Destruction:
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue