[ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)
Paul E. McKenney
paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Sun Feb 8 22:47:48 EST 2009
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:08:25PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers (compudj at krystal.dyndns.org) wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 02:36:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 04:46:10PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > >
> > > [ . . . ]
> > >
> > > > > I ran your modified version within my benchmarks :
> > > > >
> > > > > with return value : 14.164 cycles per read
> > > > > without return value : 16.4017 cycles per read
> > > > >
> > > > > So we have a 14% performance decrease due to this. We also pollute the
> > > > > branch prediction buffer and we add a cache access due to the added
> > > > > variables in the TLS. Returning the value has the clear advantage of
> > > > > letting the compiler keep it around in registers or on the stack, which
> > > > > clearly costs less.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think the speed factor outweights the visual considerations. Maybe
> > > > > we could switch to something like :
> > > > >
> > > > > unsigned int qparity;
> > > > >
> > > > > urcu_read_lock(&qparity);
> > > > > ...
> > > > > urcu_read_unlock(&qparity);
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be a bit like local_irq_save() in the kernel, except that we
> > > > > could do it in a static inline because we pass the address. I
> > > > > personnally dislike the local_irq_save() way of hiding the fact that it
> > > > > writes to the variable in a "clever" macro. I'd really prefer to leave
> > > > > the " & ".
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your opinion ?
> > > >
> > > > My current opinion is that I can avoid the overflow problem and the
> > > > need to recheck, which might get rid of the need for both arguments
> > > > and return values while still maintaining good performance. The trick
> > > > is to use only the topmost bit for the grace-period counter, and all
> > > > the rest of the bits for nesting. That way, no matter what value of
> > > > global counter one picks up, it will be waited for (since there are but
> > > > two values that the global counter takes on).
> > > >
> > > > But just now coding it, so will see if it actually works.
> > >
> > > Seems to work, and seems to be pretty fast on my machine, anyway.
> > > This one adapts itself to 32- and 64-bit machines, though almost
> > > all of the code is common. It does do a check, but avoids array
> > > indexing, arguments, and return values.
> > >
> > > How does it do on your hardware?
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Wow...
> >
> > Patch updated against HEAD.
> >
> > Time per read : 7.53622 cycles
> >
> > Half of what we had previously.. I'll have to look at the assembly. :)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at polymtl.ca>
> > ---
> >
> > test_urcu.c | 6 +++---
> > test_urcu_timing.c | 6 +++---
> > urcu.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
> > urcu.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/test_urcu.c b/test_urcu.c
> > index f6be45b..f115a4a 100644
> > --- a/test_urcu.c
> > +++ b/test_urcu.c
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ void rcu_copy_mutex_unlock(void)
> >
> > void *thr_reader(void *arg)
> > {
> > - int qparity, i, j;
> > + int i, j;
> > struct test_array *local_ptr;
> >
> > printf("thread %s, thread id : %lx, tid %lu\n",
> > @@ -83,14 +83,14 @@ void *thr_reader(void *arg)
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
> > for (j = 0; j < 100000000; j++) {
> > - rcu_read_lock(&qparity);
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > local_ptr = rcu_dereference(test_rcu_pointer);
> > if (local_ptr) {
> > assert(local_ptr->a == 8);
> > assert(local_ptr->b == 12);
> > assert(local_ptr->c[55] == 2);
> > }
> > - rcu_read_unlock(&qparity);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/test_urcu_timing.c b/test_urcu_timing.c
> > index 57fda4f..9903705 100644
> > --- a/test_urcu_timing.c
> > +++ b/test_urcu_timing.c
> > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static cycles_t reader_time[NR_READ] __attribute__((aligned(128)));
> >
> > void *thr_reader(void *arg)
> > {
> > - int qparity, i, j;
> > + int i, j;
> > struct test_array *local_ptr;
> > cycles_t time1, time2;
> >
> > @@ -107,12 +107,12 @@ void *thr_reader(void *arg)
> > time1 = get_cycles();
> > for (i = 0; i < OUTER_READ_LOOP; i++) {
> > for (j = 0; j < INNER_READ_LOOP; j++) {
> > - rcu_read_lock(&qparity);
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > local_ptr = rcu_dereference(test_rcu_pointer);
> > if (local_ptr) {
> > assert(local_ptr->a == 8);
> > }
> > - rcu_read_unlock(&qparity);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> > }
> > time2 = get_cycles();
> > diff --git a/urcu.c b/urcu.c
> > index 08fb75d..2914b66 100644
> > --- a/urcu.c
> > +++ b/urcu.c
> > @@ -19,17 +19,17 @@
> >
> > pthread_mutex_t urcu_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
> >
> > -/* Global quiescent period parity */
> > -int urcu_qparity;
> > +/* Global grace period counter */
> > +long urcu_gp_ctr;
> >
> > -int __thread urcu_active_readers[2];
> > +long __thread urcu_active_readers;
> >
> > /* Thread IDs of registered readers */
> > #define INIT_NUM_THREADS 4
> >
> > struct reader_data {
> > pthread_t tid;
> > - int *urcu_active_readers;
> > + long *urcu_active_readers;
> > };
> >
> > static struct reader_data *reader_data;
> > @@ -60,11 +60,9 @@ void internal_urcu_unlock(void)
> > /*
> > * called with urcu_mutex held.
> > */
> > -static int switch_next_urcu_qparity(void)
> > +static void switch_next_urcu_qparity(void)
> > {
> > - int old_parity = urcu_qparity;
> > - urcu_qparity = 1 - old_parity;
> > - return old_parity;
> > + urcu_gp_ctr += RCU_GP_CTR_BOTTOM_BIT;
> > }
> >
> > static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
> > @@ -89,7 +87,7 @@ static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
> > mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
> > }
> >
> > -void wait_for_quiescent_state(int parity)
> > +void wait_for_quiescent_state(void)
> > {
> > struct reader_data *index;
> >
> > @@ -101,7 +99,7 @@ void wait_for_quiescent_state(int parity)
> > /*
> > * BUSY-LOOP.
> > */
> > - while (index->urcu_active_readers[parity] != 0)
> > + while (rcu_old_gp_ongoing(index->urcu_active_readers))
> > barrier();
> > }
> > /*
> > @@ -115,17 +113,16 @@ void wait_for_quiescent_state(int parity)
> >
> > static void switch_qparity(void)
> > {
> > - int prev_parity;
> >
> > /* All threads should read qparity before accessing data structure. */
> > /* Write ptr before changing the qparity */
> > force_mb_all_threads();
> > - prev_parity = switch_next_urcu_qparity();
> > + switch_next_urcu_qparity();
> >
> > /*
> > * Wait for previous parity to be empty of readers.
> > */
> > - wait_for_quiescent_state(prev_parity);
> > + wait_for_quiescent_state();
> > }
> >
> > void synchronize_rcu(void)
> > diff --git a/urcu.h b/urcu.h
> > index b6b5c7b..e83c69f 100644
> > --- a/urcu.h
> > +++ b/urcu.h
> > @@ -66,23 +66,39 @@ static inline void atomic_inc(int *v)
> >
> > #define SIGURCU SIGUSR1
> >
> > -/* Global quiescent period parity */
> > -extern int urcu_qparity;
> > +#define RCU_GP_CTR_BOTTOM_BIT (sizeof(long) == 4 ? 0x80000000 : 0x100L)
>
> Shouldn't it be the opposite ?
>
> e.g.
>
> #define RCU_GP_CTR_BOTTOM_BIT (sizeof(long) == 4 ? 0x100L : 0x80000000L)
Absolutely not!!! For 32-bit systems, the GP count is only the upper
bit. That is exactly what allows the overflow check to be omitted.
For 64-bit systems, I rely on the upper 56 bits taking a couple of
millenia to overflow.
For 64-bit systems, one could also use only the upper bit
(0x8000000000000000), and that might actually make for better code.
> > +#define RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK (RCU_GP_CTR_BOTTOM_BIT - 1)
> >
> > -extern int __thread urcu_active_readers[2];
> > +/* Global quiescent period counter with low-order bits unused. */
> > +extern long urcu_gp_ctr;
> >
> > -static inline int get_urcu_qparity(void)
> > +extern long __thread urcu_active_readers;
> > +
> > +static inline int rcu_old_gp_ongoing(long *value)
> > {
> > - return urcu_qparity;
> > + long v;
> > +
> > + if (value == NULL)
> > + return 0;
> > + v = ACCESS_ONCE(*value);
> > + if (sizeof(long) == 4) {
> > + return (v & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) &&
> > + ((v ^ ACCESS_ONCE(urcu_gp_ctr)) & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK);
>
> There must be something about the ^ I am missing ? Compared to it, the
> 64-bits test is a - , with < 0...
Yep. For 32 bits, if the top bit is the same as that of the current value
of the counter, we must wait. I could have written:
(v & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) !=
(ACCESS_ONCE(urcu_gp_ctr) & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK)
but doing so would require two "&" operations. Though perhaps the
compiler would have figured it out...
Thanx, Paul
> Mathieu
>
> > + } else {
> > + return (v & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) &&
> > + (v - ACCESS_ONCE(urcu_gp_ctr) < 0);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > -/*
> > - * urcu_parity should be declared on the caller's stack.
> > - */
> > -static inline void rcu_read_lock(int *urcu_parity)
> > +static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
> > {
> > - *urcu_parity = get_urcu_qparity();
> > - urcu_active_readers[*urcu_parity]++;
> > + long tmp;
> > +
> > + tmp = urcu_active_readers;
> > + if ((tmp & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) == 0)
> > + urcu_active_readers = urcu_gp_ctr + 1;
> > + else
> > + urcu_active_readers = tmp + 1;
> > /*
> > * Increment active readers count before accessing the pointer.
> > * See force_mb_all_threads().
> > @@ -90,14 +106,14 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock(int *urcu_parity)
> > barrier();
> > }
> >
> > -static inline void rcu_read_unlock(int *urcu_parity)
> > +static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > {
> > barrier();
> > /*
> > * Finish using rcu before decrementing the pointer.
> > * See force_mb_all_threads().
> > */
> > - urcu_active_readers[*urcu_parity]--;
> > + urcu_active_readers--;
> > }
> >
> > extern void *urcu_publish_content(void **ptr, void *new);
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ltt-dev mailing list
> > ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> > http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> >
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list