[ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)
Mathieu Desnoyers
compudj at krystal.dyndns.org
Fri Feb 13 07:49:00 EST 2009
* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:53:41PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:38:26PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > Replying to a separate portion of the mail with less CC :
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:08:24PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:35:49PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:42:58PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ . . . ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And I had bugs in my model that allowed the rcu_read_lock() model
> > > > > > > > > to nest indefinitely, which overflowed into the top bit, messing
> > > > > > > > > things up. :-/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Attached is a fixed model. This model validates correctly (woo-hoo!).
> > > > > > > > > Even better, gives the expected error if you comment out line 180 and
> > > > > > > > > uncomment line 213, this latter corresponding to the error case I called
> > > > > > > > > out a few days ago.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Great ! :) I added this version to the git repository, hopefully it's ok
> > > > > > > > with you ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Works for me!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will play with removing models of mb...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, I see you already did..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I continued this, and surprisingly few are actually required, though
> > > > > > > I don't fully trust the modeling of removed memory barriers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On my side I cleaned up the code a lot, and actually added some barriers
> > > > > > ;) Especially in the busy loops, where we expect the other thread's
> > > > > > value to change eventually between iterations. A smp_rmb() seems more
> > > > > > appropriate that barrier(). I also added a lot of comments about
> > > > > > barriers in the code, and made the reader side much easier to review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please feel free to comment on my added code comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > The torture test now looks much more familiar. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I fixed some compiler warnings (in my original, sad to say), added an
> > > > > ACCESS_ONCE() to rcu_read_lock() (also in my original),
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I thought about this ACCESS_ONCE during my sleep.. just did not
> > > > have to to update the source yet. :)
> > > >
> > > > Merged. Thanks !
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > --- a/urcu.c
> > > > > +++ b/urcu.c
> > > > > @@ -99,7 +99,8 @@ static void force_mb_single_thread(pthread_t tid)
> > > > > * BUSY-LOOP.
> > > > > */
> > > > > while (sig_done < 1)
> > > > > - smp_rmb(); /* ensure we re-read sig-done */
> > > > > + barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
> > > > > + /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
> > > >
> > > > That could be a smp_rmc() ? (see other mail)
> > >
> > > I prefer making ACCESS_ONCE() actually having the full semantics implied
> > > by its name. ;-)
> > >
> > > See patch at end of this email.
> > >
> >
> > See my email about LOAD_REMOTE/STORE_REMOTE :)
> >
> > > > > smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -113,7 +114,8 @@ static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
> > > > > if (!reader_data)
> > > > > return;
> > > > > sig_done = 0;
> > > > > - smp_mb(); /* write sig_done before sending the signals */
> > > > > + /* smp_mb(); write sig_done before sending the signals */
> > > > > + /* redundant with barriers in pthread_kill(). */
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely not. pthread_kill does not send a signal to self in every
> > > > case because the writer thread has not requirement to register itself.
> > > > It *could* be registered as a reader too, but does not have to.
> > >
> > > No, not the barrier in the signal handler, but rather the barriers in
> > > the system call invoked by pthread_kill().
> > >
> >
> > The barrier implied by going through a system call does not imply cache
> > flushing AFAIK. So we would have to at least leave a big comment here
> > saying that the kernel has to provide such guarantee. So under that
> > comment I would leave a smp_mc();.
> >
> > > > > for (index = reader_data; index < reader_data + num_readers; index++)
> > > > > pthread_kill(index->tid, SIGURCU);
> > > > > /*
> > > > > @@ -121,7 +123,8 @@ static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
> > > > > * BUSY-LOOP.
> > > > > */
> > > > > while (sig_done < num_readers)
> > > > > - smp_rmb(); /* ensure we re-read sig-done */
> > > > > + barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
> > > > > + /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
> > > >
> > > > That could be a smp_rmc() ?
> > >
> > > Again, prefer:
> > >
> > > while (ACCESS_ONCE() < num_readers)
> > >
> > > after upgrading ACCESS_ONCE() to provide the full semantics.
> > >
> > > I will send a patch.
> >
> > I'll use a variation :
> >
> > while (LOAD_REMOTE(sig_done) < num_readers)
> > cpu_relax();
>
> I suspect that LOAD_SHARED() and STORE_SHARED() would be more intuitive.
> But shouldn't we align with the Linux-kernel usage where reasonable?
> (Yes, this can be a moving target, but there isn't much else that
> currently supports this level of SMP function on quite the variety of
> CPU architectures.)
>
Agreed. This is partly why I decided to CC Linus and the Blackfin
maintainers on this. I think it would be a shame to add such support in
a low-level userland RCU library and not to push it at the kernel level.
I really like the LOAD_SHARED and STORE_SHARED and the smp_*mc() macros,
because I think they help modeling very well what is done to local vs
shared data.
> > > > > smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
> > > > > }
> > > > > #endif
> > > > > @@ -181,7 +184,8 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void)
> > > > > * the writer waiting forever while new readers are always accessing
> > > > > * data (no progress).
> > > > > */
> > > > > - smp_mb();
> > > > > + /* smp_mb(); Don't need this one for CPU, only compiler. */
> > > > > + barrier();
> > > >
> > > > smp_mc() ?
> > >
> > > ACCESS_ONCE().
> > >
> >
> > Ah, this is what I dislike about using :
> >
> > STORE_REMOTE(x, v);
> > ...
> > if (LOAD_REMOTE(y) ...)
> > rather than
> > x = v;
> > smp_mc();
> > if (y ...)
> >
> > We will end up in a situation where we do 2 cache flushes rather than a
> > single one. So wherever possible, I would be tempted to leave the
> > smp_mc().
>
> Ummm... There is a very real reason why I moved from bare
> smp_read_barrier_depends() calls to rcu_dereference(). Code with an
> rcu_dereference() style is -much- easier to read.
>
> So I would flip that -- use the per-variable API unless you see
> measureable system-level pain. Because the variable-free API will
> inflict very real readability pain!
>
> The problem is that the relationship of the variable-free API to the
> variables it is supposed to constrain gets lost. With the per-variable
> APIs, the relationship is obvious and explicit.
>
That's why comments on memory barriers are strictly mandatory. :-) But
yes, I agree that we should use STORE_REMOTE/LOAD_REMOTE when where we
cannot possibly flush more than one read/write at once.
I updated the git tree to use STORE_REMOTE/LOAD_REMOTE.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> > > > >
> > > > > switch_next_urcu_qparity(); /* 1 -> 0 */
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Side-note :
> > > > on archs without cache coherency, all smp_[rw ]mb would turn into a
> > > > cache flush.
> > >
> > > So I might need more in my ACCESS_ONCE() below.
> > >
> > > Add .gitignore files, and redefine accesses in terms of a new
> > > ACCESS_ONCE().
> >
> > I'll merge the .gitignore file, thanks,
>
> Sounds good!
>
> > Please see my updated git tree.
>
> Will do!
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Mathieu
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > .gitignore | 9 +++++++++
> > > formal-model/.gitignore | 3 +++
> > > urcu.c | 10 ++++------
> > > urcu.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..29aa7e5
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/.gitignore
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> > > +test_rwlock_timing
> > > +test_urcu
> > > +test_urcu_timing
> > > +test_urcu_yield
> > > +urcu-asm.o
> > > +urcu.o
> > > +urcutorture
> > > +urcutorture-yield
> > > +urcu-yield.o
> > > diff --git a/formal-model/.gitignore b/formal-model/.gitignore
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..49fdd8a
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/formal-model/.gitignore
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > > +pan
> > > +pan.*
> > > +urcu.spin.trail
> > > diff --git a/urcu.c b/urcu.c
> > > index a696439..f61d4c3 100644
> > > --- a/urcu.c
> > > +++ b/urcu.c
> > > @@ -98,9 +98,8 @@ static void force_mb_single_thread(pthread_t tid)
> > > * Wait for sighandler (and thus mb()) to execute on every thread.
> > > * BUSY-LOOP.
> > > */
> > > - while (sig_done < 1)
> > > - barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
> > > - /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
> > > + while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < 1)
> > > + continue;
> > > smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -122,9 +121,8 @@ static void force_mb_all_threads(void)
> > > * Wait for sighandler (and thus mb()) to execute on every thread.
> > > * BUSY-LOOP.
> > > */
> > > - while (sig_done < num_readers)
> > > - barrier(); /* ensure compiler re-reads sig-done */
> > > - /* cache coherence guarantees CPU re-read. */
> > > + while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < num_readers)
> > > + continue;
> > > smp_mb(); /* read sig_done before ending the barrier */
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > > diff --git a/urcu.h b/urcu.h
> > > index 79d9464..dd040a5 100644
> > > --- a/urcu.h
> > > +++ b/urcu.h
> > > @@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long x, volatile void *ptr,
> > > /* Nop everywhere except on alpha. */
> > > #define smp_read_barrier_depends()
> > >
> > > +#define CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT
> > > +#define cpu_relax barrier
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching accesses. The compiler
> > > * is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of ACCESS_ONCE(),
> > > @@ -110,7 +113,16 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long x, volatile void *ptr,
> > > * use is to mediate communication between process-level code and irq/NMI
> > > * handlers, all running on the same CPU.
> > > */
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT
> > > #define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
> > > +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT */
> > > +#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) ({ \
> > > + typeof(x) _________x1; \
> > > + _________x1 = (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x)); \
> > > + cpu_relax(); \
> > > + (_________x1); \
> > > + })
> > > +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT */
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * rcu_dereference - fetch an RCU-protected pointer in an
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list