Skip to contentSkip to conversation

introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v4)

RFC PATCH New Mathieu Desnoyers 1 participant 1 message Jan 12, 2010 x86

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

RFC PATCH 1/1 introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v4)

Here is an implementation of a new system call, sys_membarrier(), which executes a memory barrier on all threads of the current process.

It aims at greatly simplifying and enhancing the current signal-based liburcu userspace RCU synchronize_rcu() implementation. (found at http://lttng.org/urcu)

Changelog since v1:

- Only perform the IPI in CONFIG_SMP.
- Only perform the IPI if the process has more than one thread.
- Only send IPIs to CPUs involved with threads belonging to our process.
- Adaptative IPI scheme (single vs many IPI with threshold).
- Issue smp_mb() at the beginning and end of the system call.

Changelog since v2:
- simply send-to-many to the mm_cpumask. It contains the list of processors we have to IPI to (which use the mm), and this mask is updated atomically.

Changelog since v3a:
- Confirm that each CPU indeed runs the current task's ->mm before sending an IPI. Ensures that we do not disturn RT tasks in the presence of lazy TLB shootdown.
- Document memory barriers needed in switch_mm().
- Surround helper functions with #ifdef CONFIG_SMP.

Both the signal-based and the sys_membarrier userspace RCU schemes permit us to remove the memory barrier from the userspace RCU rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() primitives, thus significantly accelerating them. These memory barriers are replaced by compiler barriers on the read-side, and all matching memory barriers on the write-side are turned into an invokation of a memory barrier on all active threads in the process. By letting the kernel perform this synchronization rather than dumbly sending a signal to every process threads (as we currently do), we diminish the number of unnecessary wake ups and only issue the memory barriers on active threads. Non-running threads do not need to execute such barrier anyway, because these are implied by the scheduler context switches.

To explain the benefit of this scheme, let's introduce two example threads:

Thread A (non-frequent, e.g. executing liburcu synchronize_rcu()) Thread B (frequent, e.g. executing liburcu rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock())

In a scheme where all smp_mb() in thread A synchronize_rcu() are ordering memory accesses with respect to smp_mb() present in rcu_read_lock/unlock(), we can change all smp_mb() from synchronize_rcu() into calls to sys_membarrier() and all smp_mb() from rcu_read_lock/unlock() into compiler barriers "barrier()".

Before the change, we had, for each smp_mb() pairs:

Thread A                    Thread B
prev mem accesses           prev mem accesses
smp_mb()                    smp_mb()
follow mem accesses         follow mem accesses

After the change, these pairs become:

Thread A                    Thread B
prev mem accesses           prev mem accesses
sys_membarrier()            barrier()
follow mem accesses         follow mem accesses

As we can see, there are two possible scenarios: either Thread B memory accesses do not happen concurrently with Thread A accesses (1), or they do (2).

1) Non-concurrent Thread A vs Thread B accesses:

Thread A Thread B
prev mem accesses
sys_membarrier()
follow mem accesses
prev mem accesses
barrier()
follow mem accesses

In this case, thread B accesses will be weakly ordered. This is OK, because at that point, thread A is not particularly interested in ordering them with respect to its own accesses.

2) Concurrent Thread A vs Thread B accesses

Thread A                    Thread B
prev mem accesses           prev mem accesses
sys_membarrier()            barrier()
follow mem accesses         follow mem accesses

In this case, thread B accesses, which are ensured to be in program order thanks to the compiler barrier, will be "upgraded" to full smp_mb() thanks to the IPIs executing memory barriers on each active system threads. Each non-running process threads are intrinsically serialized by the scheduler.

For my Intel Xeon E5405
(10,000,000 sys_membarrier calls, one thread is doing the sys_membarrier, the others are busy looping)

T=1: 0m20.173s
T=2: 0m20.506s
T=3: 0m22.632s
T=4: 0m24.759s
T=5: 0m26.633s
T=6: 0m29.654s
T=7: 0m30.669s

The expected top pattern, when using 1 CPU for a thread doing sys_membarrier() in a loop and other 7 threads busy-waiting in user-space on a variable shows that the thread doing sys_membarrier is doing mostly system calls, and other threads are mostly running in user-space. Note that IPI handlers are not taken into account in the cpu time sampling.

Cpu0  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Cpu1  : 99.7%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.3%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Cpu2  : 99.3%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.7%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Cpu3  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Cpu4  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Cpu5  : 96.0%us,  1.3%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  2.6%si,  0.0%st
Cpu6  :  1.3%us, 98.7%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Cpu7  : 96.1%us,  3.3%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.3%hi,  0.3%si,  0.0%st

Results in liburcu:

Operations in 10s, 6 readers, 2 writers:

(what we previously had)
memory barriers in reader: 973494744 reads, 892368 writes
signal-based scheme: 6289946025 reads, 1251 writes

(what we have now, with dynamic sys_membarrier check) memory barriers in reader: 907693804 reads, 817793 writes
sys_membarrier scheme: 4316818891 reads, 503790 writes

So the dynamic sys_membarrier availability check adds some overhead to the read-side, but besides that, we can see that we are close to the read-side performance of the signal-based scheme and also close (5/8) to the performance of the memory-barrier write-side. We have a write-side speedup of 400:1 over the signal-based scheme by using the sys_membarrier system call. This allows a 4.5:1 read-side speedup over the memory barrier scheme.

The system call number is only assigned for x86_64 in this RFC patch. Note that switch_mm() memory barrier audit is required for each architecture before assigning a system call number.

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h |   18 +++++-
 arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h   |    2 
 kernel/sched.c                     |  105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h +2 -0
Index: linux-2.6-lttng/arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h
===================================================================
@@ -661,6 +661,8 @@ __SYSCALL(__NR_pwritev, sys_pwritev)
 __SYSCALL(__NR_rt_tgsigqueueinfo, sys_rt_tgsigqueueinfo)
 #define __NR_perf_event_open			298
 __SYSCALL(__NR_perf_event_open, sys_perf_event_open)
+#define __NR_membarrier				299
+__SYSCALL(__NR_membarrier, sys_membarrier)
 
 #ifndef __NO_STUBS
 #define __ARCH_WANT_OLD_READDIR
kernel/sched.c +105 -0

111 lines not on this page · raw message

arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h +16 -2
Index: linux-2.6-lttng/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
===================================================================
@@ -36,6 +36,11 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_s
 	unsigned cpu = smp_processor_id();
 
 	if (likely(prev != next)) {
+		/*
+		 * smp_mb() between user-space thread execution and
+		 * mm_cpumask clear is required by sys_membarrier().
+		 */
+		smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
 		/* stop flush ipis for the previous mm */
 		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
@@ -43,7 +48,11 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_s
 		percpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm, next);
 #endif
 		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
-
+		/*
+		 * smp_mb() between mm_cpumask set and user-space thread
+		 * execution is required by sys_membarrier(). Implied by
+		 * load_cr3.
+		 */
 		/* Re-load page tables */
 		load_cr3(next->pgd);
 
@@ -59,9 +68,14 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_s
 		BUG_ON(percpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm) != next);
 
 		if (!cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next))) {
-			/* We were in lazy tlb mode and leave_mm disabled
+			/*
+			 * We were in lazy tlb mode and leave_mm disabled
 			 * tlb flush IPI delivery. We must reload CR3
 			 * to make sure to use no freed page tables.
+			 *
+			 * smp_mb() between mm_cpumask set and user-space
+			 * thread execution is required by sys_membarrier().
+			 * Implied by load_cr3.
 			 */
 			load_cr3(next->pgd);
 			load_LDT_nolock(&next->context);
Signature · 2 lines
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68