[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] arm: Added support for getcpu() vDSO using TPIDRURW
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM Mark Rutland <> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:35:33PM +0200, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> > This makes getcpu() ~1000 times faster, this is very useful when
> > implementing per-cpu buffers in userspace (to avoid cache line
> > bouncing). As an example lttng ust becomes ~30% faster.
> >
> > The patch will break applications using TPIDRURW (which is context switched
> > since commit 4780adeefd042482f624f5e0d577bf9cdcbb760 ("ARM: 7735/2:
> It looks like you dropped the leading 'a' from the commit ID. For
> everyone else's benefit, the full ID is:
> a4780adeefd042482f624f5e0d577bf9cdcbb760

Sorry for that and thanks for fixing it.

> Please note that arm64 has done similar for compat tasks since commit:
> d00a3810c16207d2 ("arm64: context-switch user tls register tpidr_el0 for
> compat tasks")
> > Preserve the user r/w register TPIDRURW on context switch and fork")) and
> > is therefore made configurable.
> As you note above, this is an ABI break and *will* break some existing
> applications. That's generally a no-go.

Ok, I wasn't sure this was considered an ABI (but I'm not entirely
surprised ;) ). The way I was
trying to defend the breakage was by reasoning that that if it was an
ABI we broke it both with a4780ad
and with 6a1c531, and since we don't break ABI:s, it can't be one.

But hey, I'm humble here and ready to back off.

> This also leaves arm64's compat with the existing behaviour, differing
> from arm.
> I was under the impression that other mechanisms were being considered
> for fast userspace access to per-cpu data structures, e.g. restartable
> sequences. What is the state of those? Why is this better?
> If getcpu() specifically is necessary, is there no other way to
> implement it?

If you are referring to the user space stuff can probably be
implemented other ways,
it's just convenient since the interface is there and it will speed up
stuff like lttng without
modifications (well, except glibc). It's also already implemented as a
vDSO on other
major architectures (like x86, x86_64, ppc32 and ppc64).

If you are referring to the implementation of the vdso call, there are
other possibilities, but
I haven't found any that doesn't introduce overhead in context switching.

But if TPIDRURW is definitely a no go, I can work on a patch that does
this with a thread notifier
and the vdso data page. Would that be a viable option ?

> > +notrace int __vdso_getcpu(unsigned int *cpup, unsigned int *nodep,
> > + struct getcpu_cache *tcache)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long node_and_cpu;
> > +
> > + asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c13, c0, 2\n" : "=r"(node_and_cpu));
> > +
> > + if (nodep)
> > + *nodep = cpu_to_node(node_and_cpu >> 16);
> > + if (cpup)
> > + *cpup = node_and_cpu & 0xffffUL;
> Given this is directly user-accessible, this format is a de-facto ABI,
> even if it's not documented as such. Is this definitely the format you
> want long-term?

Yes, this (the interface) is indeed the important part and therefore I
tried not to invent anything
on my own.
This is the interface used by ppc32, ppc64, x86, x86_64. It's also this is
how the getcpu(2) system call is documented.


> Thanks,
> Mark.

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-05 14:26    [W:0.071 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site