lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 03:09:37PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:29:41PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > >
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/urcu.c b/urcu.c
> > > > index f2aae34..a696439 100644
> > > > --- 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. */
> > >
> > > OK, this is where I think our points of view differ. Please refer to
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/18/299.
> > >
> > > Basically, cpu_relax() used in the Linux kernel has an
> > > architecture-specific implementation which *could* include a smp_rmb()
> > > if the architecture doesn't notice writes done by other CPUs. I think
> > > Blackfin is the only architecture currently supported by the Linux
> > > kernel which defines cpu_relax() as a smp_mb(), because it does not have
> > > cache coherency.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I propose that we create a memory barrier macro which is
> > > defined as a
> > > barrier() when the cpu has cache coherency
> > > cache flush when the cpu does not have cache coherency and is
> > > compiled with smp support.
> > >
> > > We could call that
> > >
> > > smp_wmc() (for memory-coherency or memory commit)
> > > smp_rmc()
> > > smp_mc()
> > >
> > > It would be a good way to identify the location where data exchange
> > > between memory and the local cache are is required in the algorithm.
> > > What do you think ?
> >
> > Actually the best way to do this would be:
> >
> > while (ACCESS_ONCE(sig_done) < 1)
> > continue;
> >
>
> Interesting idea. Maybe we should define an accessor for the data write
> too ?

I like having just ACCESS_ONCE(), but I suppose I could live with
separate LOAD_ONCE() and STORE_ONCE() primitives.

But I am not yet convinced that this is needed, as I am not aware of any
architecture that would buffer writes forever. (Doesn't mean that there
isn't one, but it does not make sense to complicate the API just on
speculation.)

> But I suspect that in a lot of situations, what we will really want is
> to do a bunch of read/writes, and only at a particular point do the
> cache flush.

That could happen, and in fact is why the separate
smp_read_barrier_depends() primitive exists. But I -strongly-
discourage its use -- code using rcu_dereference() is -much- easier to
read and understand. So if the series of reads/writes was short, I
would say to just bite the bullet and take the multiple primitives.

If nothing else, this might encourage hardware manufacturers to do the
right thing. ;-)

> > If ACCESS_ONCE() needs to be made architecture-specific to make this
> > really work on Blackfin, we should make that change. And, now that
> > you mention it, I have heard rumors that other CPU families can violate
> > cache coherence in some circumstances.
> >
> > So perhaps ACCESS_ONCE() becomes:
> >
> > #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(); \
>
> I don't think cpu_relax would be the correct primitive to use here. We
> definitely don't want a "rep; nop;" or anything like this which _slows
> down_ the access. It's just a different goal we are pursuing. So using
> something like smp_rmc within the ACCESS_ONCE() macro in this case as I
> proposed in the other mail still seems to make sense.

Well, x86 would have CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT, so it would instead
use the old definition -- so no "rep; nop;" in any case.

Probably whatever takes the place of cpu_relax() is arch-dependent
anyway.

Thanx, Paul

> Mathieu
>
> > (_________x1); \
> > })
> > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CACHE_COHERENT */
> >
> > Seem reasonable?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-12 21:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans