Re: [PATCH v2] arm: Added support for getcpu() vDSO using TPIDRURW
From: Robin Murphy
Date: Wed Oct 05 2016 - 13:48:14 EST
On 05/10/16 17:39, Fredrik MarkstrÃm wrote:
> The approach I suggested below with the vDSO data page will obviously
> not work on smp, so suggestions are welcome.
Well, given that it's user-writeable, is there any reason an application
which cares couldn't simply run some per-cpu threads to call getcpu()
once and cache the result in TPIDRURW themselves? That would appear to
both raise no compatibility issues and work with existing kernels.
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Fredrik MarkstrÃm
> <fredrik.markstrom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:35:33PM +0200, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
>>>> This makes getcpu() ~1000 times faster, this is very useful when
>>>> implementing per-cpu buffers in userspace (to avoid cache line
>>>> bouncing). As an example lttng ust becomes ~30% faster.
>>>> The patch will break applications using TPIDRURW (which is context switched
>>>> since commit 4780adeefd042482f624f5e0d577bf9cdcbb760 ("ARM: 7735/2:
>>> It looks like you dropped the leading 'a' from the commit ID. For
>>> everyone else's benefit, the full ID is:
>> Sorry for that and thanks for fixing it.
>>> Please note that arm64 has done similar for compat tasks since commit:
>>> d00a3810c16207d2 ("arm64: context-switch user tls register tpidr_el0 for
>>> compat tasks")
>>>> Preserve the user r/w register TPIDRURW on context switch and fork")) and
>>>> is therefore made configurable.
>>> As you note above, this is an ABI break and *will* break some existing
>>> applications. That's generally a no-go.
>> Ok, I wasn't sure this was considered an ABI (but I'm not entirely
>> surprised ;) ). The way I was
>> trying to defend the breakage was by reasoning that that if it was an
>> ABI we broke it both with a4780ad
>> and with 6a1c531, and since we don't break ABI:s, it can't be one.
>> But hey, I'm humble here and ready to back off.
>>> This also leaves arm64's compat with the existing behaviour, differing
>>> from arm.
>>> I was under the impression that other mechanisms were being considered
>>> for fast userspace access to per-cpu data structures, e.g. restartable
>>> sequences. What is the state of those? Why is this better?
>>> If getcpu() specifically is necessary, is there no other way to
>>> implement it?
>> If you are referring to the user space stuff can probably be
>> implemented other ways,
>> it's just convenient since the interface is there and it will speed up
>> stuff like lttng without
>> modifications (well, except glibc). It's also already implemented as a
>> vDSO on other
>> major architectures (like x86, x86_64, ppc32 and ppc64).
>> If you are referring to the implementation of the vdso call, there are
>> other possibilities, but
>> I haven't found any that doesn't introduce overhead in context switching.
>> But if TPIDRURW is definitely a no go, I can work on a patch that does
>> this with a thread notifier
>> and the vdso data page. Would that be a viable option ?
>>>> +notrace int __vdso_getcpu(unsigned int *cpup, unsigned int *nodep,
>>>> + struct getcpu_cache *tcache)
>>>> + unsigned long node_and_cpu;
>>>> + asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c13, c0, 2\n" : "=r"(node_and_cpu));
>>>> + if (nodep)
>>>> + *nodep = cpu_to_node(node_and_cpu >> 16);
>>>> + if (cpup)
>>>> + *cpup = node_and_cpu & 0xffffUL;
>>> Given this is directly user-accessible, this format is a de-facto ABI,
>>> even if it's not documented as such. Is this definitely the format you
>>> want long-term?
>> Yes, this (the interface) is indeed the important part and therefore I
>> tried not to invent anything
>> on my own.
>> This is the interface used by ppc32, ppc64, x86, x86_64. It's also this is
>> how the getcpu(2) system call is documented.