Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753577AbZJDOiZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 10:38:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752625AbZJDOiY (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 10:38:24 -0400 Received: from tomts40.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.97]:40803 "EHLO tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752528AbZJDOiX (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 10:38:23 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAHdLyEpMROOX/2dsb2JhbACBUs4FhCoE Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 10:37:45 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Userspace RCU: (ab)using futexes to save cpu cycles and energy Message-ID: <20091004143745.GA19785@Krystal> References: <20090923174820.GA12827@Krystal> <20091001144037.GB6205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091001144037.GB6205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.27.31-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 10:16:01 up 47 days, 1:05, 2 users, load average: 0.96, 0.38, 0.23 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5466 Lines: 153 * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 01:48:20PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Hi, > > > > When implementing the call_rcu() "worker thread" in userspace, I ran > > into the problem that it had to be woken up periodically to check if > > there are any callbacks to execute. However, I easily imagine that this > > does not fit well with the "green computing" definition. > > > > Therefore, I've looked at ways to have the call_rcu() callers waking up > > this worker thread when callbacks are enqueued. However, I don't want to > > take any lock and the fast path (when no wake up is required) should not > > cause any cache-line exchange. > > > > Here are the primitives I've created. I'd like to have feedback on my > > futex use, just to make sure I did not do any incorrect assumptions. > > > > This could also be eventually used in the QSBR Userspace RCU quiescent > > state and in mb/signal userspace RCU when exiting RCU read-side C.S. to > > ensure synchronize_rcu() does not busy-wait for too long. > > > > /* > > * Wake-up any waiting defer thread. Called from many concurrent threads. > > */ > > static void wake_up_defer(void) > > { > > if (unlikely(atomic_read(&defer_thread_futex) == -1)) > > atomic_set(&defer_thread_futex, 0); > > futex(&defer_thread_futex, FUTEX_WAKE, > > 0, NULL, NULL, 0); > > } > > > > /* > > * Defer thread waiting. Single thread. > > */ > > static void wait_defer(void) > > { > > atomic_dec(&defer_thread_futex); > > if (atomic_read(&defer_thread_futex) == -1) > > futex(&defer_thread_futex, FUTEX_WAIT, -1, > > NULL, NULL, 0); > > } > > The standard approach would be to use pthread_cond_wait() and > pthread_cond_broadcast(). Unfortunately, this would require holding a > pthread_mutex_lock across both operations, which would not necessarily > be so good for wake-up-side scalability. The pthread_cond_broadcast() mutex is really a bugger when it comes to execute it at each rcu_read_unlock(). We could as well use a mutex to protect the whole read-side.. :-( > > That said, without this sort of heavy-locking approach, wakeup races > are quite difficult to avoid. > I did a formal model of my futex-based wait/wakeup. The main idea is that the waiter: - Set itself to "waiting" - Checks the "real condition" for which it will wait (e.g. queues empty when used for rcu callbacks, no more ongoing old reader thread C.S. when used in synchronize_rcu()) - Calls sys_futex if the variable have not changed. And the waker: - sets the "real condition" waking up the waiter (enqueuing, or rcu_read_unlock()) - check if the waiter must be woken up, if so, wake it up by setting the state to "running" and calling sys_futex. But as you say, wakeup races are difficult (but not impossible!) to avoid. This is why I resorted to a formal model of the wait/wakeup scheme to ensure that we cannot end up in a situation where a waker races with the waiter and does not wake it up when it should. This is nothing fancy (does not model memory and instruction reordering automatically), but I figure that memory barriers are required between almost every steps of this algorithm, so by adding smp_mb() I end up ensure sequential behavior. I added test cases in the model to ensure that incorrect memory reordering _would_ cause errors by doing the reordering by hand in error-injection runs. The model is available at: http://www.lttng.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=userspace-rcu.git;a=tree;f=futex-wakeup;h=4ddeaeb2784165cb0465d4ca9f7d27acb562eae3;hb=refs/heads/formal-model (this is in the formal-model branch of the urcu tree, futex-wakeup subdir) This is modeling this snippet of code : static int defer_thread_futex; /* * Wake-up any waiting defer thread. Called from many concurrent threads. */ static void wake_up_defer(void) { if (unlikely(uatomic_read(&defer_thread_futex) == -1)) { uatomic_set(&defer_thread_futex, 0); futex(&defer_thread_futex, FUTEX_WAKE, 1, NULL, NULL, 0); } } static void enqueue(void *callback) /* not the actual types */ { add_to_queue(callback); smp_mb(); wake_up_defer(); } /* * rcu_defer_num_callbacks() returns the total number of callbacks * enqueued. */ /* * Defer thread waiting. Single thread. */ static void wait_defer(void) { uatomic_dec(&defer_thread_futex); smp_mb(); /* Write futex before read queue */ if (rcu_defer_num_callbacks()) { smp_mb(); /* Read queue before write futex */ /* Callbacks are queued, don't wait. */ uatomic_set(&defer_thread_futex, 0); } else { smp_rmb(); /* Read queue before read futex */ if (uatomic_read(&defer_thread_futex) == -1) futex(&defer_thread_futex, FUTEX_WAIT, -1, NULL, NULL, 0); } } Comments are welcome, Thanks, Mathieu > Thanx, Paul -- 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/