linux_old1/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h

250 lines
7.5 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
Red Black Trees
(C) 1999 Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
(C) 2002 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
(C) 2012 Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
linux/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h
*/
#ifndef _LINUX_RBTREE_AUGMENTED_H
#define _LINUX_RBTREE_AUGMENTED_H
#include <linux/compiler.h>
#include <linux/rbtree.h>
/*
* Please note - only struct rb_augment_callbacks and the prototypes for
* rb_insert_augmented() and rb_erase_augmented() are intended to be public.
* The rest are implementation details you are not expected to depend on.
*
* See Documentation/rbtree.txt for documentation and samples.
*/
struct rb_augment_callbacks {
void (*propagate)(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_node *stop);
void (*copy)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new);
void (*rotate)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new);
};
extern void __rb_insert_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
void (*augment_rotate)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new));
/*
* Fixup the rbtree and update the augmented information when rebalancing.
*
* On insertion, the user must update the augmented information on the path
* leading to the inserted node, then call rb_link_node() as usual and
* rb_augment_inserted() instead of the usual rb_insert_color() call.
* If rb_augment_inserted() rebalances the rbtree, it will callback into
* a user provided function to update the augmented information on the
* affected subtrees.
*/
static inline void
rb_insert_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
const struct rb_augment_callbacks *augment)
{
__rb_insert_augmented(node, root, augment->rotate);
}
#define RB_DECLARE_CALLBACKS(rbstatic, rbname, rbstruct, rbfield, \
rbtype, rbaugmented, rbcompute) \
static inline void \
rbname ## _propagate(struct rb_node *rb, struct rb_node *stop) \
{ \
while (rb != stop) { \
rbstruct *node = rb_entry(rb, rbstruct, rbfield); \
rbtype augmented = rbcompute(node); \
if (node->rbaugmented == augmented) \
break; \
node->rbaugmented = augmented; \
rb = rb_parent(&node->rbfield); \
} \
} \
static inline void \
rbname ## _copy(struct rb_node *rb_old, struct rb_node *rb_new) \
{ \
rbstruct *old = rb_entry(rb_old, rbstruct, rbfield); \
rbstruct *new = rb_entry(rb_new, rbstruct, rbfield); \
new->rbaugmented = old->rbaugmented; \
} \
static void \
rbname ## _rotate(struct rb_node *rb_old, struct rb_node *rb_new) \
{ \
rbstruct *old = rb_entry(rb_old, rbstruct, rbfield); \
rbstruct *new = rb_entry(rb_new, rbstruct, rbfield); \
new->rbaugmented = old->rbaugmented; \
old->rbaugmented = rbcompute(old); \
} \
rbstatic const struct rb_augment_callbacks rbname = { \
rbname ## _propagate, rbname ## _copy, rbname ## _rotate \
};
#define RB_RED 0
#define RB_BLACK 1
#define __rb_parent(pc) ((struct rb_node *)(pc & ~3))
#define __rb_color(pc) ((pc) & 1)
#define __rb_is_black(pc) __rb_color(pc)
#define __rb_is_red(pc) (!__rb_color(pc))
#define rb_color(rb) __rb_color((rb)->__rb_parent_color)
#define rb_is_red(rb) __rb_is_red((rb)->__rb_parent_color)
#define rb_is_black(rb) __rb_is_black((rb)->__rb_parent_color)
static inline void rb_set_parent(struct rb_node *rb, struct rb_node *p)
{
rb->__rb_parent_color = rb_color(rb) | (unsigned long)p;
}
static inline void rb_set_parent_color(struct rb_node *rb,
struct rb_node *p, int color)
{
rb->__rb_parent_color = (unsigned long)p | color;
}
static inline void
__rb_change_child(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new,
struct rb_node *parent, struct rb_root *root)
{
if (parent) {
if (parent->rb_left == old)
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
WRITE_ONCE(parent->rb_left, new);
else
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
WRITE_ONCE(parent->rb_right, new);
} else
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
WRITE_ONCE(root->rb_node, new);
}
extern void __rb_erase_color(struct rb_node *parent, struct rb_root *root,
void (*augment_rotate)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new));
static __always_inline struct rb_node *
__rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
const struct rb_augment_callbacks *augment)
{
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
struct rb_node *child = node->rb_right;
struct rb_node *tmp = node->rb_left;
struct rb_node *parent, *rebalance;
unsigned long pc;
if (!tmp) {
/*
* Case 1: node to erase has no more than 1 child (easy!)
*
* Note that if there is one child it must be red due to 5)
* and node must be black due to 4). We adjust colors locally
* so as to bypass __rb_erase_color() later on.
*/
pc = node->__rb_parent_color;
parent = __rb_parent(pc);
__rb_change_child(node, child, parent, root);
if (child) {
child->__rb_parent_color = pc;
rebalance = NULL;
} else
rebalance = __rb_is_black(pc) ? parent : NULL;
tmp = parent;
} else if (!child) {
/* Still case 1, but this time the child is node->rb_left */
tmp->__rb_parent_color = pc = node->__rb_parent_color;
parent = __rb_parent(pc);
__rb_change_child(node, tmp, parent, root);
rebalance = NULL;
tmp = parent;
} else {
struct rb_node *successor = child, *child2;
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
tmp = child->rb_left;
if (!tmp) {
/*
* Case 2: node's successor is its right child
*
* (n) (s)
* / \ / \
* (x) (s) -> (x) (c)
* \
* (c)
*/
parent = successor;
child2 = successor->rb_right;
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
augment->copy(node, successor);
} else {
/*
* Case 3: node's successor is leftmost under
* node's right child subtree
*
* (n) (s)
* / \ / \
* (x) (y) -> (x) (y)
* / /
* (p) (p)
* / /
* (s) (c)
* \
* (c)
*/
do {
parent = successor;
successor = tmp;
tmp = tmp->rb_left;
} while (tmp);
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
child2 = successor->rb_right;
WRITE_ONCE(parent->rb_left, child2);
WRITE_ONCE(successor->rb_right, child);
rb_set_parent(child, successor);
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
augment->copy(node, successor);
augment->propagate(parent, successor);
}
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
tmp = node->rb_left;
WRITE_ONCE(successor->rb_left, tmp);
rb_set_parent(tmp, successor);
pc = node->__rb_parent_color;
tmp = __rb_parent(pc);
__rb_change_child(node, successor, tmp, root);
rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal Change the insert and erase code such that lockless searches are non-fatal. In and of itself an rbtree cannot be correctly searched while in-modification, we can however provide weaker guarantees that will allow the rbtree to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as latches; see 9b0fd802e8c0 ("seqcount: Add raw_write_seqcount_latch()"). For this to work we need the following guarantees from the rbtree code: 1) a lockless reader must not see partial stores, this would allow it to observe nodes that are invalid memory. 2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely. For 1) we must use WRITE_ONCE() for all updates to the tree structure; in particular this patch only does rb_{left,right} as those are the only element required for simple searches. It generates slightly worse code, probably because volatile. But in pointer chasing heavy code a few instructions more should not matter. For 2) I have carefully audited the code and drawn every intermediate link state and not found a loop. Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2015-05-27 09:39:36 +08:00
if (child2) {
successor->__rb_parent_color = pc;
rb_set_parent_color(child2, parent, RB_BLACK);
rebalance = NULL;
} else {
unsigned long pc2 = successor->__rb_parent_color;
successor->__rb_parent_color = pc;
rebalance = __rb_is_black(pc2) ? parent : NULL;
}
tmp = successor;
}
augment->propagate(tmp, NULL);
return rebalance;
}
static __always_inline void
rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
const struct rb_augment_callbacks *augment)
{
struct rb_node *rebalance = __rb_erase_augmented(node, root, augment);
if (rebalance)
__rb_erase_color(rebalance, root, augment->rotate);
}
#endif /* _LINUX_RBTREE_AUGMENTED_H */