Messages in this thread | | | From | "Joseph Seigh" <> | Subject | Re: Proposal for a userspace "architecture portability" library | Date | Sun, 05 Dec 2004 14:48:16 -0500 |
| |
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:53:43 +1100, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> Some of our kernel headers implement generally useful abstractions > across all of the architectures we support. I would like to make an > "architecture portability" library, based on the kernel headers but as > a separate project from the kernel, and intended for use in userspace. > > The headers that I want to base this on are: > > atomic.h > bitops.h > byteorder.h > rwsem.h > semaphore.h > spinlock.h > system.h (for mb et al., xchg, cmpxchg) > unaligned.h >
The atomics would be a good idea especially if they were cleaned up a little. A list of functions that would be useful
atomic_set -- atomically fetches a value atomic_read -- atomically stores a value
These two exist but one should be renamed for consistancy, atomic_write or atomic_get.
fetch_and_add -- atomically add to an integer and return result. fetch_and_increment -- atomically increment by one and return result fetch_and_decrement -- atomically decrement by one and return result.
fetch_and_add could replace the numerous atomic_(add,sub,inc,dec)_xxxx which either don't test for the right condition or don't test the result at all. Also, get rid of atomic_t. It doesn't appear to be useful and is a pain to work around. We probably need a way to define what operands are atomic but that's not the way to do it. The fetch and increment/decrement aren't really needed but would allow optimization for some platforms.
Generic interlocked instructions such as compare and swap. I prefer IBM style which returns a sucessful/not successful w/ update of compare value over the Microsoft style which returns the old value. For hardware with LL/SC, compare and swap can be simulated. Also double wide compare and swap. Not all platforms have it but it's imporatant enough to provide even if you have to simulate it on the ones that don't. Also an xchg/swap atomic op would be a nice optimization for those platforms that have it. You don't use it a lot but when you do it's a nice optimization over simulating it using compare and swap.
Memory barriers also. At a minimum, rmb(), wmb(), and mb(). If you're ambitious finer granularity membars such as those on sparc. You can use stronger membars on architectures that don't have that granularity. Also the dependent load barrier read_barrier_depends(). This would be used by many lock-free algorithms, not just RCU, which itself can have multiple implementations for preemptive user threads. I've done 3 implementations of RCU for preemtive user threads so far.
Read/write locks and semaphores already exist in userspace. Spinlocks I personally would avoid as they can have rather significant negative performance impact. You can usually get what you want with lock-free algorithms without the negative consequences that spin-locks have.
These are fairly advanced interfaces and you really need to know what you're doing. While defining these interfaces could be considered dangerous by enabling the the unqualified to use them, not providing them won't stop them from doing dangerous and stupid things which they'll do anyway. With official headers, you could provide man pages and header comments with appropiate warnings and pointers to faqs. A common error is the incorrect impementation of DCL (double checked locking) which has its own DangerWillRobisonDanger web page here http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html which has had little effect in dissuading people from using it. If you had an official load w/ read_barrier_depends() macro similar to RCU's, it would be hard for people to ignore the fact of its existence when informed of such. It'd be "official".
And these interfaces will help immensly those of us working with lock-free algorithms who don't have the time or resources to implement yet another atomic operation on every single platform.
Joe Seigh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |