Hi Alex, Let me just add one comment.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > > One thing that Peter has been asking for is a design document for the > way we are going to approach multi-threaded TCG emulation. I started > with the information that was captured on the wiki and tried to build on > that. It's almost certainly incomplete but I thought it would be worth > posting for wider discussion early rather than later. > > One obvious omission at the moment is the lack of discussion about other > non-TLB shared data structures in QEMU (I'm thinking of the various > dirty page tracking bits, I'm sure there is more). > > I've also deliberately tried to avoid documenting the design decisions > made in the current Greensoc's patch series. This is so we can > concentrate on the big picture before getting side-tracked into the > implementation details. > > I have now started digging into the Greensocs code in earnest and the > plan is eventually the design and the implementation will converge on a > final documented complete solution ;-) > > Anyway as ever I look forward to the comments and discussion: > > STATUS: DRAFTING > > Introduction > ============ > > This document outlines the design for multi-threaded TCG emulation. > The original TCG implementation was single threaded and dealt with > multiple CPUs by with simple round-robin scheduling. This simplified a > lot of things but became increasingly limited as systems being > emulated gained additional cores and per-core performance gains for host > systems started to level off. > > Memory Consistency > ================== > > Between emulated guests and host systems there are a range of memory > consistency models. While emulating weakly ordered systems on strongly > ordered hosts shouldn't cause any problems the same is not true for > the reverse setup. > > The proposed design currently does not address the problem of > emulating strong ordering on a weakly ordered host although even on > strongly ordered systems software should be using synchronisation > primitives to ensure correct operation. > > Memory Barriers > --------------- > > Barriers (sometimes known as fences) provide a mechanism for software > to enforce a particular ordering of memory operations from the point > of view of external observers (e.g. another processor core). They can > apply to any memory operations as well as just loads or stores. > > The Linux kernel has an excellent write-up on the various forms of > memory barrier and the guarantees they can provide [1]. > > Barriers are often wrapped around synchronisation primitives to > provide explicit memory ordering semantics. However they can be used > by themselves to provide safe lockless access by ensuring for example > a signal flag will always be set after a payload. > > DESIGN REQUIREMENT: Add a new tcg_memory_barrier op > > This would enforce a strong load/store ordering so all loads/stores > complete at the memory barrier. On single-core non-SMP strongly > ordered backends this could become a NOP. I believe the main problem here is not just about translating guest barriers to host barriers, but also about adding barriers in the TCG generated code where they are needed i.e. when, in the guest code, the synchronization/memory barriers don't wrap atomic instructions. To give a concrete example, let's suppose a case where we emulate an x86 guest on ARM (on ARMv8 the situation should be not so complicated). At some point TCG will be asked to translate a Linux spin_lock(), that eventually uses arch_spin_lock(). Simplifying a bit, what happens is along the lines of: - barrier() // meaning a compiler barrier - atomic update of the (spin)lock value - barrier() The architecture dependent part is of course the "atomic update of the spinlock" implementation, which, on ARM, relies on ldrex/strex instructions and eventually issues a full hardware memory barrier (dmb). On the other hand, on x86, only the cmpxchg instructions is used (coupled with a memory compiler clobber), but no hardware full memory barrier is required because of a stronger memory model. I'm pretty sure that the TCG code generated from spin_lock() will not be the same as the one present in an ARM kernel binary compiled with the latest GCC, but still, that full memory barrier is likely to be required also in the TCG generated code. Now the question could be: looking at the bare flow of asm x86 instructions used to implement spin_lock(), how can we deduce that a dmb instruction has to be added after the atomic instructions? Should we pair every guest atomic instruction with a dmb? Regards, alvise > > There may be a case for further refinement if this causes performance > bottlenecks. > > Memory Control and Maintenance > ------------------------------ > > This includes a class of instructions for controlling system cache > behaviour. While QEMU doesn't model cache behaviour these instructions > are often seen when code modification has taken place to ensure the > changes take effect. > > Synchronisation Primitives > -------------------------- > > There are two broad types of synchronisation primitives found in > modern ISAs: atomic instructions and exclusive regions. > > The first type offer a simple atomic instruction which will guarantee > some sort of test and conditional store will be truly atomic w.r.t. > other cores sharing access to the memory. The classic example is the > x86 cmpxchg instruction. > > The second type offer a pair of load/store instructions which offer a > guarantee that an region of memory has not been touched between the > load and store instructions. An example of this is ARM's ldrex/strex > pair where the strex instruction will return a flag indicating a > successful store only if no other CPU has accessed the memory region > since the ldrex. > > Traditionally TCG has generated a series of operations that work > because they are within the context of a single translation block so > will have completed before another CPU is scheduled. However with > the ability to have multiple threads running to emulate multiple CPUs > we will need to explicitly expose these semantics. > > DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: > - atomics > - Introduce some atomic TCG ops for the common semantics > - The default fallback helper function will use qemu_atomics > - Each backend can then add a more efficient implementation > - load/store exclusive > [AJB: > There are currently a number proposals of interest: > - Greensocs tweaks to ldst ex (using locks) > - Slow-path for atomic instruction translation [2] > - Helper-based Atomic Instruction Emulation (AIE) [3] > ] > > > Shared Data Structures > ====================== > > Global TCG State > ---------------- > > We need to protect the entire code generation cycle including any post > generation patching of the translated code. This also implies a shared > translation buffer which contains code running on all cores. Any > execution path that comes to the main run loop will need to hold a > mutex for code generation. This also includes times when we need flush > code or jumps from the tb_cache. > > DESIGN REQUIREMENT: Add locking around all code generation, patching > and jump cache modification > > Memory maps and TLBs > -------------------- > > The memory handling code is fairly critical to the speed of memory > access in the emulated system. > > - Memory regions (dividing up access to PIO, MMIO and RAM) > - Dirty page tracking (for code gen, migration and display) > - Virtual TLB (for translating guest address->real address) > > There is a both a fast path walked by the generated code and a slow > path when resolution is required. When the TLB tables are updated we > need to ensure they are done in a safe way by bringing all executing > threads to a halt before making the modifications. > > DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: > > - TLB Flush All/Page > - can be across-CPUs > - will need all other CPUs brought to a halt > - TLB Update (update a CPUTLBEntry, via tlb_set_page_with_attrs) > - This is a per-CPU table - by definition can't race > - updated by it's own thread when the slow-path is forced > > Emulated hardware state > ----------------------- > > Currently the hardware emulation has no protection against > multiple-accesses. However guest systems accessing emulated hardware > should be carrying out their own locking to prevent multiple CPUs > confusing the hardware. Of course there is no guarantee the there > couldn't be a broken guest that doesn't lock so you could get racing > accesses to the hardware. > > There is the class of paravirtualized hardware (VIRTIO) that works in > a purely mmio mode. Often setting flags directly in guest memory as a > result of a guest triggered transaction. > > DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: > > - Access to IO Memory should be serialised by an IOMem mutex > - The mutex should be recursive (e.g. allowing pid to relock itself) > > IO Subsystem > ------------ > > The I/O subsystem is heavily used by KVM and has seen a lot of > improvements to offload I/O tasks to dedicated IOThreads. There should > be no additional locking required once we reach the Block Driver. > > DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: > > - The dataplane should continue to be protected by the iothread locks > > > References > ========== > > [1] > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/334561 > [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/335297 > > > > -- > Alex Bennée
