Re: [patch] i386 pmap sysmaps_pcpu[] atomic access

On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 14:32 -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:27:39 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> > > > <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:18:16PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> > > > >> <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Well, I'm taking a part on porting FreeBSD to ARM11mpcore. UP case was
> > > > >> simple. SMP case is more complex and rather new for me. Recently, I
> > > > >> was solving a problem with PCPU stuff. For example, PCPU_GET is
> > > > >> implemented by one instruction on i386 arch. So, a need of atomicity
> > > > >> with respect to interrupts can be overlooked. On load-store archs, the
> > > > >> implementation which works in SMP case is not so simple. And what
> > > > >> works in UP case (single PCPU), not works in SMP case. Believe me,
> > > > >> mysterious and sporadic 'mutex not owned' assertions and others ones
> > > > >> caused by curthreads mess, it takes a while ...
> > > > > Note that PCPU_GET() is not needed to be atomic. The reason is that the code
> > > > > which uses its result would not be atomic (single-instruction or whatever, see
> > > > > below). Thus, either the preemption should not matter since the action with
> > > > > the per-cpu data is advisory, as is in the case of i386 pmap you noted.
> > > > > or some external measures should be applied in advance to the containing
> > > > > region (which you proposed, by bracing with sched_pin()).
> > > > 
> > > > So, it's advisory in the case of i386 pmap... Well, if you can live
> > > > with that, I can too.
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, note that it is not interrupts but preemption which is concern.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes and no. In theory, yes, a preemption is a concern. In FreeBSD,
> > > > however, sched_pin() and critical_enter() and their counterparts are
> > > > implemented with help of curthread. And curthread definition falls to
> > > > PCPU_GET(curthread) if not defined in other way. So, curthread should
> > > > be atomic with respect to interrupts and in general, PCPU_GET() should
> > > > be too. Note that spinlock_enter() definitions often (always) use
> > > > curthread too. Anyhow, it's defined in MD code and can be defined for
> > > > each arch separately.
> > > 
> > > curthread is a bit magic. :)  If you perform a context switch during an
> > > interrupt (which will change 'curthread') you also change your register state.
> > > When you resume, the register state is also restored.  This means that while
> > > something like 'PCPU_GET(cpuid)' might be stale after you read it, 'curthread'
> > > never is.  However, it is true that actually reading curthread has to be
> > > atomic.  If your read of curthread looks like:
> > > 
> > > 	mov <pcpu reg>, r0
> > > 	add <offset of pc_curthread>, r0
> > > 	ld r0, r1
> > > 
> > > Then that will indeed break.  Alpha used a fixed register for 'pcpu_reg'
> > > (as does ia64 IIRC).  OTOH, you might also be able to depend on the fact that
> > > pc_curthread is the first thing in 'struct pcpu' (and always will be, you could
> > > add a CTASSERT to future-proof).  In that case, you can remove the 'add'
> > > instruction and instead just do:
> > > 
> > > 	ld <pcpu reg>, r1
> > > 
> > > which is fine.
> > 
> > I just looked at the arm pcpu.h, and indeed the curthread falls
> > back to the default implementation from sys/pcpu.h, which is
> > get_pcpu()->pc_curthread. This looks buggy for SMP, does our arm port
> > support any multi-cpu configuration ?
> 
> Not in HEAD.  There is a projects branch for armv6 I think that does.
> 

There isn't anything I've heard of that makes it all the way to single
user mode yet with multiple cores enabled. 

-- Ian