On 3/8/20, Mateusz Guzik <m...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Author: mjg
> Date: Sun Mar  8 00:22:32 2020
> New Revision: 358733
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/358733
>
> Log:
>   seqc: tidy up
>
>   - avoid hand-rolled read
>   - match begin/end in terms of fence style
>

There were off lists questions about this so let me clarify.

The first bit is a cosmetic change, but the second one is not.

> Modified:
>   head/sys/sys/seqc.h
>
> Modified: head/sys/sys/seqc.h
> ==============================================================================
> --- head/sys/sys/seqc.h       Sat Mar  7 15:37:23 2020        (r358732)
> +++ head/sys/sys/seqc.h       Sun Mar  8 00:22:32 2020        (r358733)
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ static __inline void
>  seqc_write_end(seqc_t *seqcp)
>  {
>
> -     atomic_store_rel_int(seqcp, *seqcp + 1);
> +     atomic_thread_fence_rel();
> +     *seqcp += 1;
>       MPASS(!seqc_in_modify(*seqcp));
>       critical_exit();
>  }

For correct operation the counter has to be modified *before* any work
is done and *after* it is completed.

Consider a trivial case:
seqc++;
foo[0] = 0;
foo[1] = 1;
seqc++;

There are 2 ways in which this can be mucked with:
- the compiler can be looking at reordering or reworking the increment
(e.g., to collapse it to just += 2 instead). a compiler barrier
prevents that.
- even with generated machine code which increments in correct places
the cpu can be looking at reordering the operation (which is heavily
dependent on architecture), in particular it could end up issuing
seqc++; foo[1] = 1; which would defeat the point. This is where
release fences come in.

With the patched code there is:
seqc++;
atomic_thread_fence_rel(); /* make sure seqc++ is issued before foo
starts getting modified */
foo[0] = 0;
foo[1] = 1;
atomic_thread_fence_rel(); /* make sure modifications to foo don't
leak past this spot */
seqc++;

In comparison, the previous code was:
seqc++;
atomic_thread_fence_rel(); /* make sure seqc++ is issued before foo
starts getting modified */
foo[0] = 0;
foo[1] = 1;
atomic_store_rel_int(seqcp, *seqcp + 1); /* make sure modifications to
too don't leak past this spot and update seqc immediately */

There are 2 differences here -- one is an improvement and second one
does not matter:
the win is: the previous code forces the compiler to compute an
incremented value and then store it. On amd64 this translates to the
following (with rdx holding the address of the counter):

mov    (%rdx),%eax /* load the value */
add    $0x1,%eax    /* add 1 */
mov    %eax,(%rdx) /* store it */

On patched kernel this is:
addl   $0x1,(%rdx)

which is clearly much nicer.

the not a problem: the code does not issue the release fence after
incrementing the counter the second time, meaning that in principle it
can happen arbitrarily late, possibly disturbing code which waits for
the counter to become even. This is not a problem because in whoever
modifies it is supposed to have a lock and release it shortly after,
which also posts the release fence and consequently makes sure the
counter update is visible. Also note these routines come with
preemption disablement around the modification -- if the thread gets
preempted as a result of critical_exit from seqc_write_end, it will
also publish the updated counter. If the updater never does anything
which flushes the store buffer then in the absolute worst case they
will get preempted, at which point once more we are covered. Note that
code which wants more deterministic behavior will want to
seqc_read_any, test the counter once and if it is caught uneven resort
to locking.

> @@ -84,7 +85,7 @@ seqc_read(const seqc_t *seqcp)
>       seqc_t ret;
>
>       for (;;) {
> -             ret = atomic_load_acq_int(__DECONST(seqc_t *, seqcp));
> +             ret = seqc_read_any(seqcp);
>               if (__predict_false(seqc_in_modify(ret))) {
>                       cpu_spinwait();
>                       continue;
> _______________________________________________
> svn-src-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>


-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to