[ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)

[vapier.adi@gmail.com (Mike Frysinger)]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 14:36, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 01:54:11PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> * Linus Torvalds (torvalds at linux-foundation.org) wrote:
>> > Btw, for user space, if you want to do this all right for something like
>> > BF. I think the only _correct_ thing to do (in the sense that the end
>> > result will actually be debuggable) is to essentially give full SMP
>> > coherency in user space.
>> >
>> > It's doable, but rather complicated, and I'm not 100% sure it really ends
>> > up making sense. The way to do it is to just simply say:
>> >
>> >  - never map the same page writably on two different cores, and always
>> >    flush the cache (on the receiving side) when you switch a page from one
>> >    core to another.
>> >
>> > Now, the kernel can't really do that reasonably, but user space possibly could.
>> >
>> > Now, I realize that blackfin doesn't actually even have a MMU or a TLB, so
>> > by "mapping the same page" in that case we end up really meaning "having a
>> > shared mapping or thread". I think that _should_ be doable. The most
>> > trivial approach might be to simply limit all processes with shared
>> > mappings or CLONE_VM to core 0, and letting core 1 run everything else
>> > (but you could do it differently: mapping something with MAP_SHARED would
>> > force you to core 0, but threads would just force the thread group to
>> > stay on _one_ core, rather than necessarily a fixed one).
>> >
>> > Yeah, because of the lack of real memory protection, the kernel can't
>> > _know_ that processes don't behave badly and access things that they
>> > didn't explicitly map, but I'm hoping that that is rare.
>> >
>> > And yes, if you really want to use threads as a way to do something
>> > across cores, you'd be screwed - the kenrel would only schedule the
>> > threads on one CPU. But considering the undefined nature of threading on
>> > such a cpu, wouldn't that still be preferable? Wouldn't it be nice to have
>> > the knowledge that user space _looks_ cache-coherent by virtue of the
>> > kernel just limiting cores appropriately?
>> >
>> > And then user space would simply not need to worry as much. Code written
>> > for another architecture will "just work" on BF SMP too. With the normal
>> > uclinux limitations, of course.
>>
>> I don't know enough about BF to tell for sure, but the other way around
>> I see that would still permit running threads with shared memory space
>> on different CPUs is to call a cache flush each time a userspace lock is
>> taken/released (at the synchronization points where the "magic
>> test-and-set instruction" is used) _from_ userspace.
>>
>> If some more elaborate userspace MT code uses something else than those
>> basic locks provided by core libraries to synchronize data exchange,
>> then it would be on its own and have to ensure cache flushing itself.
>
> How about just doing a sched_setaffinity() in the BF case?  Sounds
> like an easy way to implement Linus's suggestion of restricting the
> multithreaded processes to a single core.  I have a hard time losing
> sleep over the lack of parallelism in the case where the SMP support is
> at best rudimentary...

the quick way is to tell people to run their program through `taskset`
(which is what we're doing now).

the next step up (or down depending on how you look at it) would be to
hook the clone function to do this automatically.  i havent gotten
around to testing this yet which is why there isnt anything in there
yet though.

asmlinkage int bfin_clone(struct pt_regs....
       unsigned long clone_flags;
       unsigned long newsp;

+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+       if (current->rt.nr_cpus_allowed == NR_CPUS) {
+               current->cpus_allowed = cpumask_of_cpu(smp_processor_id());
+               current->rt.nr_cpus_allowed = 1;
+       }
+#endif
+
       /* syscall2 puts clone_flags in r0 and usp in r1 */
       clone_flags = regs->r0;
       newsp = regs->r1;
-mike