Date:	Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:09:02 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	RongQing Li <roy.qing.li@...il.com>,
	Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, srostedt@...ux.com
Subject: Re: this cpu documentation

On 04/03/13 13:41, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> Subject: this_cpu: Add documentation
> 
> Document the rationale and the way to use this_cpu operations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> 
> Index: linux/Documentation/this_cpu_ops
> ===================================================================
> --- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux/Documentation/this_cpu_ops	2013-04-03 15:25:41.424846306 -0500
> @@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
> +this_cpu operations
> +-------------------
> +
> +this_cpu operations are a way of optimizing access to per cpu variables
> +associated with the *currently* executing processor
> +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).
> +
> +The this_cpu operations add an per cpu variable offset to the processor

                           add a per

> +specific percpu base and encode that operation in the instruction operating
> +on the per cpu variable.
> +
> +This mean there are no atomicity issues between the calculation

        means

> +of the offset and the operation on the data. Therefore it is not necessary
> +to disable preempt 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 guarantee. The x86 for example can execute RMV instructions like

                                                        RMW ??

> +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 concurency

                                                                concurrency

> +issues with other processors in the system.
> +
> +On x86 the fs: or the gs: segment registers contain the basis of the per cpu area. It is

                                                           base

> +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 percpu operations. Before this_cpu_ops
> +such sequence also required preempt disable/enable to prevent the Os from

                                                                     OS or O/S or kernel

> +moving the thread to a different processor while the calculation is performed.
> +
> +
> +The main use of the this_cpu operations has been to optimize counter operations.
> +
> +
> +	this_cpu_inc(x)
> +
> +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 percpu 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 percpu 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 cacheline
> +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 the 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\

drop ending backslash

> +per cpu area is simply added to the percpu offset.
> +
> +
> +
> +Per cpu variables and offsets
> +-----------------------------
> +
> +Per cpu variables have *offsets* to the beginning of the percpu 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 percpu 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.
> +
> +In the context of per cpu operations
> +
> +	x is a per cpu variable. Most this_cpu operations take a cpu variable.
> +
> +	&x is the *offset* 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
> +--------------------------------------------
> +
> +Lets say we have a percpu structure

   Let's

> +
> +	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;
> +
> +	z = 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--

	add    ;

> +
> +	z = pp->n++

	add        ;

> +
> +
> +Variants of this_cpu ops
> +-------------------------
> +
> +this_cpu ops are interupt safe. Some architecture do not support these per

                    interrupt

> +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 reenable 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 __this_cpu operations are provided. F.e.

                                           E.g. or For example:


> +
> +	__this_cpu_inc(x)
> +
> +Will increment x and will not fallback to code that disables interrupts on
> +platforms that cannot accomplish atomicity through address relocation and
> +an RMV operation in the same instruction.

      RMW ?

> +
> +
> +
> +&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.
> +
> +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 ().
> +
> +
> +Christoph Lameter, April 3rd, 2013


-- 
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists