Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1190009

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] lightweight per-cpu locks / restartable sequences

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:26:21PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> > I think the topic is really interesting and we'll be able to get numbers
>> > from production workloads to help justify and compare different
>> > approaches.
>>
>> Ok that would be important. I also think that the approach may be used
>> in kernel to reduce the overhead of CONFIG_PREEMPT and also to implement
>> fast versions of this_cpu_ops for non x86 architectures and maybe even
>
>
> Also, I don't think we need a schedule check for the in-kernel usage,
> pure interrupt should be good enough, nobody should (want to) call
> schedule() while inside such a critical section, which leaves us with
> involuntary preemption, and those are purely interrupt driven.
>
> Now the 'problem' is finding these special regions fast, the easy
> solution is the same as the one proposed for userspace, one big section.
> That way the interrupt only has to check if the IP is inside this
> section which is minimal effort.
>
> The down side is that all percpu ops would then end up being full
> function calls. Which on some archs is indeed faster than disabling
> interrupts, but not by much I'm afraid.

Anther down site is that all percpu ops can't call any function outside
the section.  Otherwise we would fail to detect whether it is a special
region  or be hard to detect it.

If we disallow the percpu ops calling any function, I think we can
insert some special instructions to the generated code along with
a notation in a table (like exception table for copy_to_user()).
So thus the interrupt only has to check the special instructions
near the IP and confirm it by check it on the table.

>
>> optimize the x86 variants if interrupts also can detect critical sections
>> and restart at defined points.
>
> I really don't see how we can beat %GS prefixes with any such scheme.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] lightweight per-cpu locks /  restartable sequences Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2015-07-10 19:30 +0200
  Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] lightweight per-cpu locks /  restartable sequences Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-13 12:00 +0200
    Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] lightweight per-cpu locks /  restartable sequences Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-07-14 22:10 +0200
    Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] lightweight per-cpu locks /  restartable sequences Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:30 +0200
    Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] lightweight per-cpu locks /  restartable sequences Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:40 +0200

csiph-web