diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt | 339 |
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt b/Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5cb8b883a --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ +=================== +this_cpu operations +=================== + +:Author: Christoph Lameter, August 4th, 2014 +:Author: Pranith Kumar, Aug 2nd, 2014 + +this_cpu operations are a way of optimizing access to per cpu +variables associated with the *currently* executing processor. This is +done through the use of segment registers (or a dedicated register where +the cpu permanently stored the beginning of the per cpu area for a +specific processor). + +this_cpu operations add a per cpu variable offset to the processor +specific per cpu base and encode that operation in the instruction +operating on the per cpu variable. + +This means that there are no atomicity issues between the calculation of +the offset and the operation on the data. Therefore it is not +necessary to disable preemption or interrupts to ensure that the +processor is not changed between the calculation of the address and +the operation on the data. + +Read-modify-write operations are of particular interest. Frequently +processors have special lower latency instructions that can operate +without the typical synchronization overhead, but still provide some +sort of relaxed atomicity guarantees. The x86, for example, can execute +RMW (Read Modify Write) instructions like inc/dec/cmpxchg without the +lock prefix and the associated latency penalty. + +Access to the variable without the lock prefix is not synchronized but +synchronization is not necessary since we are dealing with per cpu +data specific to the currently executing processor. Only the current +processor should be accessing that variable and therefore there are no +concurrency issues with other processors in the system. + +Please note that accesses by remote processors to a per cpu area are +exceptional situations and may impact performance and/or correctness +(remote write operations) of local RMW operations via this_cpu_*. + +The main use of the this_cpu operations has been to optimize counter +operations. + +The following this_cpu() operations with implied preemption protection +are defined. These operations can be used without worrying about +preemption and interrupts:: + + this_cpu_read(pcp) + this_cpu_write(pcp, val) + this_cpu_add(pcp, val) + this_cpu_and(pcp, val) + this_cpu_or(pcp, val) + this_cpu_add_return(pcp, val) + this_cpu_xchg(pcp, nval) + this_cpu_cmpxchg(pcp, oval, nval) + this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2) + this_cpu_sub(pcp, val) + this_cpu_inc(pcp) + this_cpu_dec(pcp) + this_cpu_sub_return(pcp, val) + this_cpu_inc_return(pcp) + this_cpu_dec_return(pcp) + + +Inner working of this_cpu operations +------------------------------------ + +On x86 the fs: or the gs: segment registers contain the base of the +per cpu area. It is then possible to simply use the segment override +to relocate a per cpu relative address to the proper per cpu area for +the processor. So the relocation to the per cpu base is encoded in the +instruction via a segment register prefix. + +For example:: + + DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, x); + int z; + + z = this_cpu_read(x); + +results in a single instruction:: + + mov ax, gs:[x] + +instead of a sequence of calculation of the address and then a fetch +from that address which occurs with the per cpu operations. Before +this_cpu_ops such sequence also required preempt disable/enable to +prevent the kernel from moving the thread to a different processor +while the calculation is performed. + +Consider the following this_cpu operation:: + + this_cpu_inc(x) + +The above results in the following single instruction (no lock prefix!):: + + inc gs:[x] + +instead of the following operations required if there is no segment +register:: + + int *y; + int cpu; + + cpu = get_cpu(); + y = per_cpu_ptr(&x, cpu); + (*y)++; + put_cpu(); + +Note that these operations can only be used on per cpu data that is +reserved for a specific processor. Without disabling preemption in the +surrounding code this_cpu_inc() will only guarantee that one of the +per cpu counters is correctly incremented. However, there is no +guarantee that the OS will not move the process directly before or +after the this_cpu instruction is executed. In general this means that +the value of the individual counters for each processor are +meaningless. The sum of all the per cpu counters is the only value +that is of interest. + +Per cpu variables are used for performance reasons. Bouncing cache +lines can be avoided if multiple processors concurrently go through +the same code paths. Since each processor has its own per cpu +variables no concurrent cache line updates take place. The price that +has to be paid for this optimization is the need to add up the per cpu +counters when the value of a counter is needed. + + +Special operations +------------------ + +:: + + y = this_cpu_ptr(&x) + +Takes the offset of a per cpu variable (&x !) and returns the address +of the per cpu variable that belongs to the currently executing +processor. this_cpu_ptr avoids multiple steps that the common +get_cpu/put_cpu sequence requires. No processor number is +available. Instead, the offset of the local per cpu area is simply +added to the per cpu offset. + +Note that this operation is usually used in a code segment when +preemption has been disabled. The pointer is then used to +access local per cpu data in a critical section. When preemption +is re-enabled this pointer is usually no longer useful since it may +no longer point to per cpu data of the current processor. + + +Per cpu variables and offsets +----------------------------- + +Per cpu variables have *offsets* to the beginning of the per cpu +area. They do not have addresses although they look like that in the +code. Offsets cannot be directly dereferenced. The offset must be +added to a base pointer of a per cpu area of a processor in order to +form a valid address. + +Therefore the use of x or &x outside of the context of per cpu +operations is invalid and will generally be treated like a NULL +pointer dereference. + +:: + + DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, x); + +In the context of per cpu operations the above implies that x is a per +cpu variable. Most this_cpu operations take a cpu variable. + +:: + + int __percpu *p = &x; + +&x and hence p is the *offset* of a per cpu variable. this_cpu_ptr() +takes the offset of a per cpu variable which makes this look a bit +strange. + + +Operations on a field of a per cpu structure +-------------------------------------------- + +Let's say we have a percpu structure:: + + struct s { + int n,m; + }; + + DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct s, p); + + +Operations on these fields are straightforward:: + + this_cpu_inc(p.m) + + z = this_cpu_cmpxchg(p.m, 0, 1); + + +If we have an offset to struct s:: + + struct s __percpu *ps = &p; + + this_cpu_dec(ps->m); + + z = this_cpu_inc_return(ps->n); + + +The calculation of the pointer may require the use of this_cpu_ptr() +if we do not make use of this_cpu ops later to manipulate fields:: + + struct s *pp; + + pp = this_cpu_ptr(&p); + + pp->m--; + + z = pp->n++; + + +Variants of this_cpu ops +------------------------ + +this_cpu ops are interrupt safe. Some architectures do not support +these per cpu local operations. In that case the operation must be +replaced by code that disables interrupts, then does the operations +that are guaranteed to be atomic and then re-enable interrupts. Doing +so is expensive. If there are other reasons why the scheduler cannot +change the processor we are executing on then there is no reason to +disable interrupts. For that purpose the following __this_cpu operations +are provided. + +These operations have no guarantee against concurrent interrupts or +preemption. If a per cpu variable is not used in an interrupt context +and the scheduler cannot preempt, then they are safe. If any interrupts +still occur while an operation is in progress and if the interrupt too +modifies the variable, then RMW actions can not be guaranteed to be +safe:: + + __this_cpu_read(pcp) + __this_cpu_write(pcp, val) + __this_cpu_add(pcp, val) + __this_cpu_and(pcp, val) + __this_cpu_or(pcp, val) + __this_cpu_add_return(pcp, val) + __this_cpu_xchg(pcp, nval) + __this_cpu_cmpxchg(pcp, oval, nval) + __this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2) + __this_cpu_sub(pcp, val) + __this_cpu_inc(pcp) + __this_cpu_dec(pcp) + __this_cpu_sub_return(pcp, val) + __this_cpu_inc_return(pcp) + __this_cpu_dec_return(pcp) + + +Will increment x and will not fall-back to code that disables +interrupts on platforms that cannot accomplish atomicity through +address relocation and a Read-Modify-Write operation in the same +instruction. + + +&this_cpu_ptr(pp)->n vs this_cpu_ptr(&pp->n) +-------------------------------------------- + +The first operation takes the offset and forms an address and then +adds the offset of the n field. This may result in two add +instructions emitted by the compiler. + +The second one first adds the two offsets and then does the +relocation. IMHO the second form looks cleaner and has an easier time +with (). The second form also is consistent with the way +this_cpu_read() and friends are used. + + +Remote access to per cpu data +------------------------------ + +Per cpu data structures are designed to be used by one cpu exclusively. +If you use the variables as intended, this_cpu_ops() are guaranteed to +be "atomic" as no other CPU has access to these data structures. + +There are special cases where you might need to access per cpu data +structures remotely. It is usually safe to do a remote read access +and that is frequently done to summarize counters. Remote write access +something which could be problematic because this_cpu ops do not +have lock semantics. A remote write may interfere with a this_cpu +RMW operation. + +Remote write accesses to percpu data structures are highly discouraged +unless absolutely necessary. Please consider using an IPI to wake up +the remote CPU and perform the update to its per cpu area. + +To access per-cpu data structure remotely, typically the per_cpu_ptr() +function is used:: + + + DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct data, datap); + + struct data *p = per_cpu_ptr(&datap, cpu); + +This makes it explicit that we are getting ready to access a percpu +area remotely. + +You can also do the following to convert the datap offset to an address:: + + struct data *p = this_cpu_ptr(&datap); + +but, passing of pointers calculated via this_cpu_ptr to other cpus is +unusual and should be avoided. + +Remote access are typically only for reading the status of another cpus +per cpu data. Write accesses can cause unique problems due to the +relaxed synchronization requirements for this_cpu operations. + +One example that illustrates some concerns with write operations is +the following scenario that occurs because two per cpu variables +share a cache-line but the relaxed synchronization is applied to +only one process updating the cache-line. + +Consider the following example:: + + + struct test { + atomic_t a; + int b; + }; + + DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct test, onecacheline); + +There is some concern about what would happen if the field 'a' is updated +remotely from one processor and the local processor would use this_cpu ops +to update field b. Care should be taken that such simultaneous accesses to +data within the same cache line are avoided. Also costly synchronization +may be necessary. IPIs are generally recommended in such scenarios instead +of a remote write to the per cpu area of another processor. + +Even in cases where the remote writes are rare, please bear in +mind that a remote write will evict the cache line from the processor +that most likely will access it. If the processor wakes up and finds a +missing local cache line of a per cpu area, its performance and hence +the wake up times will be affected. |