* john stultz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 14:36 -0800, john stultz wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2008 6:56 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you really want an seqlock free algorithm (I _do_ want this for
> > > tracing!) :) maybe going in the RCU direction could help (I refer to my
> > > RCU-based 32-to-64 bits lockless timestamp counter extension, which
> > > could be turned into the clocksource updater).
> >
> > Yea. After our earlier discussion and talking w/ Steven, I'm taking a
> > swing at this now. The lock-free method still doesn't apply to the
> > update_wall_time function, but does work fine for the monotonic cycle
> > uses. I'll send a patch for review as soon as I get things building.
>
> So here's my first attempt at adding Mathieu's lock-free method to
> Steven's get_monotonic_cycles() interface.
>
> Completely un-tested, but it builds, so I figured I'd send it out for
> review.
>
> I'm not super sure the update or the read doesn't need something
> additional to force a memory access, but as I didn't see anything
> special in Mathieu's implementation, I'm going to guess this is ok.
>
> Mathieu, Let me know if this isn't what you're suggesting.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Index: monotonic-cleanup/include/linux/clocksource.h
> ===================================================================
> --- monotonic-cleanup.orig/include/linux/clocksource.h 2008-01-16
> 12:22:04.000000000 -0800
> +++ monotonic-cleanup/include/linux/clocksource.h 2008-01-16
> 14:41:31.000000000 -0800
> @@ -87,9 +87,17 @@
> * more than one cache line.
> */
> struct {
> - cycle_t cycle_last, cycle_accumulated, cycle_raw;
> - } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
Shouldn't the cycle_last and cycle_accumulated by in the array too ?
> + cycle_t cycle_last, cycle_accumulated;
>
> + /* base structure provides lock-free read
> + * access to a virtualized 64bit counter
> + * Uses RCU-like update.
> + */
> + struct {
We had cycle_raw before, why do we need the following two ?
> + cycle_t cycle_base_last, cycle_base;
I'm not quite sure why you need both cycle_base_last and cycle_base...
I think I'll need a bit of an explanation of what you are trying to
achieve here to see what to expect from the clock source. Are you trying
to deal with non-synchronized TSCs across CPUs in a way that will
generate a monotonic (sometimes stalling) clock ?
What I am trying to say is : I know you are trying to make a virtual
clock source where time cannot go backward, but what are your
assumptions about the "real" clock source ?
Is the intent to deal with an HPET suddenly reset to 0 or something
like this ?
Basically, I wonder why you have to calculate the current cycle count
from the previous update_wall_time event. Is is because you need to be
consistent when a clocksource change occurs ?
> + } base[2];
> + int base_num;
> + } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> u64 xtime_nsec;
> s64 error;
>
> @@ -175,19 +183,21 @@
> }
>
> /**
> - * clocksource_get_cycles: - Access the clocksource's accumulated cycle value
> + * clocksource_get_basecycles: - get the clocksource's accumulated cycle
> value
> * @cs: pointer to clocksource being read
> * @now: current cycle value
> *
> * Uses the clocksource to return the current cycle_t value.
> * NOTE!!!: This is different from clocksource_read, because it
> - * returns the accumulated cycle value! Must hold xtime lock!
> + * returns a 64bit wide accumulated value.
> */
> static inline cycle_t
> -clocksource_get_cycles(struct clocksource *cs, cycle_t now)
> +clocksource_get_basecycles(struct clocksource *cs, cycle_t now)
> {
> - cycle_t offset = (now - cs->cycle_last) & cs->mask;
> - offset += cs->cycle_accumulated;
I would disable preemption in clocksource_get_basecycles. We would not
want to be scheduled out while we hold a pointer to the old array
element.
> + int num = cs->base_num;
Since you deal with base_num in a shared manner (not per cpu), you will
need a smp_read_barrier_depend() here after the cs->base_num read.
You should think about reading the cs->base_num first, and _after_ that
read the real clocksource. Here, the clocksource value is passed as
parameter. It means that the read clocksource may have been read in the
previous RCU window.
> + cycle_t offset = (now - cs->base[num].cycle_base_last);
> + offset &= cs->mask;
> + offset += cs->base[num].cycle_base;
> return offset;
> }
>
> @@ -197,14 +207,25 @@
> * @now: current cycle value
> *
> * Used to avoids clocksource hardware overflow by periodically
> - * accumulating the current cycle delta. Must hold xtime write lock!
> + * accumulating the current cycle delta. Uses RCU-like update, but
> + * ***still requires the xtime_lock is held for writing!***
> */
> static inline void clocksource_accumulate(struct clocksource *cs, cycle_t
> now)
> {
Why do we still require xtime_lock here ? Can you tell exactly which
contexts this function will be called from (periodical timer interrupt?)
I guess it is called from one and only one CPU periodically.
> - cycle_t offset = (now - cs->cycle_last) & cs->mask;
> + /* First update the monotonic base portion.
> + * The dual array update method allows for lock-free reading.
> + */
> + int num = !cs->base_num;
> + cycle_t offset = (now - cs->base[!num].cycle_base_last);
!0 is not necessarily 1. This is why I use cpu_synth->index ? 0 : 1 in
my code. The two previous lines seems buggy. (I did the same mistake in
my first implementation) ;)
> + offset &= cs->mask;
> + cs->base[num].cycle_base = cs->base[!num].cycle_base + offset;
Here too.
> + cs->base[num].cycle_base_last = now;
Since you deal with shared data (in my algo, I use per-cpu data), you
have to add a wmb() before the base_num value update. Only then will you
ensure that other CPUs will see consistent values.
> + cs->base_num = num;
> +
> + /* Now update the cycle_accumulated portion */
> + offset = (now - cs->cycle_last) & cs->mask;
The following two updates are racy. I think they should be in the array
too. We want consistant cycle_raw, cycle_last and cycle_accumulated
values; they should therefore be presented to the reader atomically with
a pointer change.
> cs->cycle_last = now;
> cs->cycle_accumulated += offset;
> - cs->cycle_raw += offset;
> }
>
> /**
> Index: monotonic-cleanup/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> ===================================================================
> --- monotonic-cleanup.orig/kernel/time/timekeeping.c 2008-01-16
> 12:21:46.000000000 -0800
> +++ monotonic-cleanup/kernel/time/timekeeping.c 2008-01-16
> 14:15:31.000000000 -0800
> @@ -71,10 +71,12 @@
> */
> static inline s64 __get_nsec_offset(void)
> {
> - cycle_t cycle_delta;
> + cycle_t now, cycle_delta;
> s64 ns_offset;
>
> - cycle_delta = clocksource_get_cycles(clock, clocksource_read(clock));
> + now = clocksource_read(clock);
Why is there a second level of cycle_last and cycle_accumulated here ?
> + cycle_delta = (now - clock->cycle_last) & clock->mask;
> + cycle_delta += clock->cycle_accumulated;
> ns_offset = cyc2ns(clock, cycle_delta);
>
> return ns_offset;
> @@ -105,35 +107,7 @@
>
> cycle_t notrace get_monotonic_cycles(void)
> {
> - cycle_t cycle_now, cycle_delta, cycle_raw, cycle_last;
> -
> - do {
> - /*
> - * cycle_raw and cycle_last can change on
> - * another CPU and we need the delta calculation
> - * of cycle_now and cycle_last happen atomic, as well
> - * as the adding to cycle_raw. We don't need to grab
> - * any locks, we just keep trying until get all the
> - * calculations together in one state.
> - *
> - * In fact, we __cant__ grab any locks. This
> - * function is called from the latency_tracer which can
> - * be called anywhere. To grab any locks (including
> - * seq_locks) we risk putting ourselves into a deadlock.
> - */
> - cycle_raw = clock->cycle_raw;
> - cycle_last = clock->cycle_last;
> -
> - /* read clocksource: */
> - cycle_now = clocksource_read(clock);
> -
> - /* calculate the delta since the last update_wall_time: */
> - cycle_delta = (cycle_now - cycle_last) & clock->mask;
> -
> - } while (cycle_raw != clock->cycle_raw ||
> - cycle_last != clock->cycle_last);
> -
> - return cycle_raw + cycle_delta;
> + return clocksource_get_basecycles(clock, clocksource_read(clock));
> }
>
> unsigned long notrace cycles_to_usecs(cycle_t cycles)
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
