From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: "Pierre-Loup A. Griffais" <pgriffais@valvesoftware.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com,
krisman@collabora.com, shuah@kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
ryao@gentoo.org, dvhart@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
z.figura12@gmail.com, steven@valvesoftware.com,
steven@liquorix.net, malteskarupke@web.de, carlos@redhat.com,
adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 'simple' futex interface [Was: [PATCH v3 1/4] futex: Implement mechanism to wait on any of several futexes]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:01:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200303150104.GE2596@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878skhh7og.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 02:47:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> (added missing Cc: for linux-api, better late than never I guess)
>
> * Peter Zijlstra:
>
> >> What's the actual type of *uaddr? Does it vary by size (which I assume
> >> is in bits?)? Are there alignment constraints?
> >
> > Yeah, u8, u16, u32, u64 depending on the size specified in flags.
> > Naturally aligned.
>
> So 4-byte alignment for u32 and 8-byte alignment for u64 on all
> architectures?
>
> (I really want to nail this down, sorry.)
Exactly so.
> >> These system calls seemed to be type-polymorphic still, which is
> >> problematic for defining a really nice C interface. I would really like
> >> to have a strongly typed interface for this, with a nice struct futex
> >> wrapper type (even if it means that we need four of them).
> >
> > You mean like: futex_wait1(u8 *,...) futex_wait2(u16 *,...)
> > futex_wait4(u32 *,...) etc.. ?
> >
> > I suppose making it 16 or so syscalls (more if we want WAKE_OP or
> > requeue across size) is a bit daft, so yeah, sucks.
>
> We could abstract this in the userspace wrapper. It would help to have
> an explicit size argument, or at least an extension-safe way to pass
> this information to the kernel. I guess if everything else fails, we
> could use the flags bits for that, as long as it is clear that the
> interface will only support these six types (four without NUMA, two with
> NUMA).
The problem is the cmp_requeue syscall, that already has 6 arguments. I
don't see where else than the flags field we can stuff this :/
> >> Will all architectures support all sizes? If not, how do we probe which
> >> size/flags combinations are supported?
> >
> > Up to the native word size (long), IOW ILP32 will not support u64.
>
> Many ILP32 targets could support atomic accesses on 8-byte storage
> units, as long as there is 8-byte alignment. But given how common
> 4-byte-align u64 is on 32-bit, maybe that's not such a good idea.
'Many' might be over-stating it, but yeah, there are definitely a bunch
of them that can do it (x86, armv7-lpae, arc, are the ones I know from
memory). The problem is that the syscalls then look like:
sys_futex_wait(void *uaddr, u64 val, unsigned long flags, ktime_t *timo);
struct futex_wait {
void *uaddr;
u64 val;
u64 flags;
};
sys_futex_waitv(struct futex_wait *waiters, unsigned int nr_waiters,
u64 flags, ktime_t *timo);
sys_futex_wake(void *uaddr, unsigned int nr, u64 flags);
sys_futex_cmp_requeue(void *uaddr1, void *uaddr2, unsigned int nr_wake,
unsigned int nr_requeue, u64 cmpval, unsigned long flags);
And that makes 7 arguments for cmp_requeue, which can't be. Maybe we if
combine nr_wake and nr_requeue in one as 2 u16... ?
And then we need to go detector if the platform supports it or not..
> >> > For NUMA I propose that when NUMA_FLAG is set, uaddr-4 will be 'int
> >> > node_id', with the following semantics:
> >> >
> >> > - on WAIT, node_id is read and when 0 <= node_id <= nr_nodes, is
> >> > directly used to index into per-node hash-tables. When -1, it is
> >> > replaced by the current node_id and an smp_mb() is issued before we
> >> > load and compare the @uaddr.
> >> >
> >> > - on WAKE/REQUEUE, it is an immediate index.
> >>
> >> Does this mean the first waiter determines the NUMA index, and all
> >> future waiters use the same chain even if they are on different nodes?
> >
> > Every new waiter could (re)set node_id, after all, when its not actually
> > waiting, nobody cares what's in that field.
> >
> >> I think documenting this as a node index would be a mistake. It could
> >> be an arbitrary hint for locating the corresponding kernel data
> >> structures.
> >
> > Nah, it allows explicit placement, after all, we have set_mempolicy()
> > and sched_setaffinity() and all the other NUMA crud so that programs
> > that think they know what they're doing, can do explicit placement.
>
> But I'm not sure if it makes sense to read the node ID from the
> neighboring value of a futex used in this way. Or do you think that
> userspace might set the node ID to help the kernel implementation, and
> not just relying on it to be set by the kernel after initializing it to
> -1?
I'm fairly sure that there will be a number of users that will
definitely want to do that; this would be the same people that use
set_mempolicy() and sched_setaffinity() and do all the other numa
binding crud.
HPC, certain database vendors, possibly RT and KVM users.
> Conversely, even for non-NUMA systems, a lookup hint that allows to
> reduce in-kernel futex contention might be helpful. If it's documented
> to be the NUME node ID, that wouldn't be possible.
Do we really have significant contention on small systems? And how would
increasing the hash-table not solve that?
> >> > Any invalid value with result in EINVAL.
> >>
> >> Using uaddr-4 is slightly tricky with a 64-bit futex value, due to the
> >> need to maintain alignment and avoid padding.
> >
> > Yes, but it works, unlike uaddr+4 :-) Also, 1 and 2 byte futexes and
> > NUMA_FLAG are incompatible due to this, but I feel short futexes and
> > NUMA don't really make sense anyway, the only reason to use a short
> > futex is to save space, so you don't want another 4 bytes for numa on
> > top of that anyway.
>
> I think it would be much easier to make the NUMA hint the same size of
> the futex, so 4 and 8 bytes. It could also make sense to require 8 and
> 16 byte alignment, to permit different implementation choices in the
> future.
>
> So we'd have:
>
> struct futex8 { u8 value; };
> struct futex16 { u16 value __attribute__ ((aligned (2))); };
> struct futex32 { u32 value __attribute__ ((aligned (4))); };
> struct futex64 { u64 value __attribute__ ((aligned (8))); };
> struct futex32_numa { u32 value __attribute__ ((aligned (8))); u32 hint; };
> struct futex64_numa { u64 value __attribute__ ((aligned (16))); u64 hint; };
That works, I suppose... although I'm sure someone will curse us for it
when trying to pack some extra things in his cacheline.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-03 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-13 21:45 [PATCH v3 0/4] Implement FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE operation André Almeida
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] futex: Implement mechanism to wait on any of several futexes André Almeida
2020-02-28 19:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 19:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 21:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-29 0:29 ` Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
2020-02-29 10:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-03 2:47 ` Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
2020-03-03 12:00 ` 'simple' futex interface [Was: [PATCH v3 1/4] futex: Implement mechanism to wait on any of several futexes] Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-03 13:00 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-03 13:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-03 13:47 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-03 15:01 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-03-05 16:14 ` André Almeida
2020-03-05 16:25 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-05 18:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-06 16:57 ` David Laight
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] selftests: futex: Add FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE timeout test André Almeida
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] selftests: futex: Add FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE wouldblock test André Almeida
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] selftests: futex: Add FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE wake up test André Almeida
2020-02-19 16:27 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Implement FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE operation shuah
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=20200303150104.GE2596@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=andrealmeid@collabora.com \
--cc=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel@collabora.com \
--cc=krisman@collabora.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=malteskarupke@web.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pgriffais@valvesoftware.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=ryao@gentoo.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=steven@liquorix.net \
--cc=steven@valvesoftware.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=z.figura12@gmail.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).