Re: [PATCH] cpuacct: add a branch prediction

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Thu Feb 26 2009 - 20:29:32 EST


On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:58:56AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:45:09 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:06:24PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > Peter Zijlstra wroteï
> > > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 20:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > >> Peter Zijlstra wroteï
> > > >> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 19:28 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Taking hierarchy mutex while reading will make read-side stable.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > We're talking about scheduling here, taking a mutex to stop scheduling
> > > >> > won't work, nor will it be acceptible to use anything that will.
> > > >> >
> > > >> No mutex is necessary, anyway.
> > > >> hierarchy-walker function completely works well under rcu read lock,
> > > >> if small jitter is allowed.
> > > >
> > > > Right, should be doable -- and looking at the code, we have this
> > > > horrible 32 bit exception in there that locks the rq in order to read
> > > > the 64bit value.
> > > >
> > > > Would be grand to get rid of that,. how bad would it be for userspace to
> > > > get the occasionally fubarred value?
> > > >
> > > >From view of user-support saler, if terrible broken value is reported,
> > > it will be user-incident and annoy me(us) ;)
> > >
> > > I'd like to get rid of rq->lock, too..Hmm.. some routine like
> > > atomic64_read() can help this ? (But I don't want to use atomic_t here..)
> >
> > atomic64_read() will not help you on a 32-bit machine. Here is the
> > sequence of events that will cause the aforementioned user incidents and
> > consequent annoyance:
> >
> > o The value of the counter is (2^32)-1, or 0xffffffff.
> >
> > o CPU 0 reads the high-order 32 bits of the counter, getting zero.
> >
> > o CPU 1 increments the low-order 32 bits of the counter, resulting
> > in zero, but notes that there is a carry out of this field.
> >
> > o CPU 0 reads the low-order 32 bits of the counter, getting zero.
> >
> > o CPU 1 increments the high-order 32 bits of the counter, so that
> > the new value of the counter is 2^32, or 0x100000000.
> >
> > So CPU 0 gets a value that is -way- off.
> >
> > The usual trick is something like the following for counter read:
> >
> > 1. Read the high-order 32 bits of the counter.
> >
> > 2. Do a memory barrier, smp_mb().
> >
> > 3. Read the low-order 32 bits of the counter.
> >
> > 4. Do another memory barrier, again smp_mb().
> >
> > 5. Read the high-order 32 bits of the counter again.
> >
> > If it is the same as the value obtained in step 1 (or the previous
> > execution of step 5), then we are done. (This works even in case
> > of complete 64-bit overflow, though we should be very lucky to
> > live that long!) Otherwise, go to step 2.
> >
> > But it is also necessary to modify the counter update:
> >
> > 1. Increment the low-order 32 bits of the counter. If no overflow
> > occurred, we are done, otherwise, continue through this sequence
> > of steps.
> >
> > 2. Do a memory barrier, smp_mb().
> >
> > 3. Increment the high-order 32 bits of the counter.
> >
> > How to detect overflow in step 1? Well, if we are incrementing, we can
> > just test for the new value being zero. Otherwise, if we are adding
> > a 32-bit number, if the new value of the low-order 32 bits of counter
> > is less than the old value, overflow occurred (but make sure that the
> > comparison is unsigned!).
> >
> > This all assumes that you are adding a 32-bit quantity to the counter.
> > Adding 64-bit values is not much harder.
> >
> > Does this approach work for you?
> >
>
> Thank you. I'll try some and post if it seems easy to read/merge.
> Hmm, but in your approach, can't we see the counter goes backword ?
> (if the reader see only low 32 bit is incremtend.)

Ouch, indeed! The update would need to be atomic for my approach to
work. My apologies for my confusion!

> Can't we use seq_counter in include/linux/seqlock.h ?
> There is only one writer and we don't need write-side lock.

Yes, seqlock should work fine, good point!

Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/