From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Subject: Re: local_add_return
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:53:04 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812172153.05303.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081216162532.GA7575@Krystal>
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 02:55:32 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Specifically on this comment :
>
> +/* There are three obvious ways to implement local_t on an arch which
> + * can't do single-instruction inc/dec etc.
> + * 1) atomic_long
> + * 2) irq_save/irq_restore
> + * 3) multiple counters.
>
> Option 3) is not workable for tracers, because it's not safe against
> some exceptions (e.g. some hardware errors) nor NMIs.
Hmm, nor is option 2. Now I understand where you were coming from and
I sympathize with your dilemna, but I don't think that non-x86 archs should
pay for it where local_t is used as intended, so I don't think local_t should
be (have been) hijacked for this. nmi_safe_t?
> Also, local_t
> operations must have preemption disabled before playing on per-cpu data,
> which I don't see in your test. This has to be taken into account in the
> runtime cost.
atomic_long_t implementations don't have to. local_irq_save does it
as a side effect. You're right about multiple counters tho. We can
either do it conditionally or unconditionally, but I think unconditional
makes sense (CONFIG_PREEMPT=y seems to be less popular than it was).
> the CPU_OPS work done by Christoph Lameter which use
> segments to address the per-cpu data, which effectively removes the need
> for disabling preemption around local_t operations because the CPU ID
> becomes encoded in a cpu register.
Well, we did this for 32-bit x86 some time ago, so that works today.
64-bit was delayed because of the stack protection code, which needs
a fixed offset for the canary so needs zero-based percpu, but IIRC
that's orthogonal to the CPU_OPS work itself.
Here's the timing diff when trivalue is fixed here (preempt on)
Before:
local_inc=45 local_add=45 cpu_local_inc=6 local_read=21 local_add_return=127
After:
local_inc=47 local_add=47 cpu_local_inc=6 local_read=41 local_add_return=127
Since sparc64 has CONFIG_PREEMPT=n in its defconfig, I think it is still
ahead with trivalue.
Thanks,
Rusty.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-17 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-15 13:47 local_add_return Steven Rostedt
2008-12-16 6:33 ` local_add_return Rusty Russell
2008-12-16 6:57 ` local_add_return David Miller
2008-12-16 7:13 ` local_add_return David Miller
2008-12-16 22:38 ` local_add_return Rusty Russell
2008-12-16 23:25 ` local_add_return Luck, Tony
2008-12-16 23:43 ` local_add_return Heiko Carstens
2008-12-16 23:59 ` local_add_return Eric Dumazet
2008-12-17 0:01 ` local_add_return Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-18 22:52 ` local_add_return Rusty Russell
2008-12-19 3:35 ` local_add_return Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-19 5:54 ` local_add_return Rusty Russell
2008-12-19 17:06 ` local_add_return Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-20 1:33 ` local_add_return Rusty Russell
2008-12-22 18:43 ` local_add_return Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-24 11:42 ` local_add_return Rusty Russell
2008-12-24 18:53 ` local_add_return Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-16 16:25 ` local_add_return Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-17 11:23 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200812172153.05303.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christoph@lameter.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox