diff options
author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2013-05-03 18:13:19 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2013-05-03 18:13:19 +0200 |
commit | 8546dc1d4b671480961c3eaf4c0c102ae6848340 (patch) | |
tree | c646079fb48811b22b742deb6bd2e907f9e6c3d4 /Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt | |
parent | Merge tag 'sound-3.10' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tiwai... (diff) | |
parent | Merge branch 'cleanup' into for-linus (diff) | |
download | linux-8546dc1d4b671480961c3eaf4c0c102ae6848340.tar.xz linux-8546dc1d4b671480961c3eaf4c0c102ae6848340.zip |
Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://git.linaro.org/people/rmk/linux-arm
Pull ARM updates from Russell King:
"The major items included in here are:
- MCPM, multi-cluster power management, part of the infrastructure
required for ARMs big.LITTLE support.
- A rework of the ARM KVM code to allow re-use by ARM64.
- Error handling cleanups of the IS_ERR_OR_NULL() madness and fixes
of that stuff for arch/arm
- Preparatory patches for Cortex-M3 support from Uwe Kleine-König.
There is also a set of three patches in here from Hugh/Catalin to
address freeing of inappropriate page tables on LPAE. You already
have these from akpm, but they were already part of my tree at the
time he sent them, so unfortunately they'll end up with duplicate
commits"
* 'for-linus' of git://git.linaro.org/people/rmk/linux-arm: (77 commits)
ARM: EXYNOS: remove unnecessary use of IS_ERR_VALUE()
ARM: IMX: remove unnecessary use of IS_ERR_VALUE()
ARM: OMAP: use consistent error checking
ARM: cleanup: OMAP hwmod error checking
ARM: 7709/1: mcpm: Add explicit AFLAGS to support v6/v7 multiplatform kernels
ARM: 7700/2: Make cpu_init() notrace
ARM: 7702/1: Set the page table freeing ceiling to TASK_SIZE
ARM: 7701/1: mm: Allow arch code to control the user page table ceiling
ARM: 7703/1: Disable preemption in broadcast_tlb*_a15_erratum()
ARM: mcpm: provide an interface to set the SMP ops at run time
ARM: mcpm: generic SMP secondary bringup and hotplug support
ARM: mcpm_head.S: vlock-based first man election
ARM: mcpm: Add baremetal voting mutexes
ARM: mcpm: introduce helpers for platform coherency exit/setup
ARM: mcpm: introduce the CPU/cluster power API
ARM: multi-cluster PM: secondary kernel entry code
ARM: cacheflush: add synchronization helpers for mixed cache state accesses
ARM: cpu hotplug: remove majority of cache flushing from platforms
ARM: smp: flush L1 cache in cpu_die()
ARM: tegra: remove tegra specific cpu_disable()
...
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt | 211 |
1 files changed, 211 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt b/Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..415960a9bab0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +vlocks for Bare-Metal Mutual Exclusion +====================================== + +Voting Locks, or "vlocks" provide a simple low-level mutual exclusion +mechanism, with reasonable but minimal requirements on the memory +system. + +These are intended to be used to coordinate critical activity among CPUs +which are otherwise non-coherent, in situations where the hardware +provides no other mechanism to support this and ordinary spinlocks +cannot be used. + + +vlocks make use of the atomicity provided by the memory system for +writes to a single memory location. To arbitrate, every CPU "votes for +itself", by storing a unique number to a common memory location. The +final value seen in that memory location when all the votes have been +cast identifies the winner. + +In order to make sure that the election produces an unambiguous result +in finite time, a CPU will only enter the election in the first place if +no winner has been chosen and the election does not appear to have +started yet. + + +Algorithm +--------- + +The easiest way to explain the vlocks algorithm is with some pseudo-code: + + + int currently_voting[NR_CPUS] = { 0, }; + int last_vote = -1; /* no votes yet */ + + bool vlock_trylock(int this_cpu) + { + /* signal our desire to vote */ + currently_voting[this_cpu] = 1; + if (last_vote != -1) { + /* someone already volunteered himself */ + currently_voting[this_cpu] = 0; + return false; /* not ourself */ + } + + /* let's suggest ourself */ + last_vote = this_cpu; + currently_voting[this_cpu] = 0; + + /* then wait until everyone else is done voting */ + for_each_cpu(i) { + while (currently_voting[i] != 0) + /* wait */; + } + + /* result */ + if (last_vote == this_cpu) + return true; /* we won */ + return false; + } + + bool vlock_unlock(void) + { + last_vote = -1; + } + + +The currently_voting[] array provides a way for the CPUs to determine +whether an election is in progress, and plays a role analogous to the +"entering" array in Lamport's bakery algorithm [1]. + +However, once the election has started, the underlying memory system +atomicity is used to pick the winner. This avoids the need for a static +priority rule to act as a tie-breaker, or any counters which could +overflow. + +As long as the last_vote variable is globally visible to all CPUs, it +will contain only one value that won't change once every CPU has cleared +its currently_voting flag. + + +Features and limitations +------------------------ + + * vlocks are not intended to be fair. In the contended case, it is the + _last_ CPU which attempts to get the lock which will be most likely + to win. + + vlocks are therefore best suited to situations where it is necessary + to pick a unique winner, but it does not matter which CPU actually + wins. + + * Like other similar mechanisms, vlocks will not scale well to a large + number of CPUs. + + vlocks can be cascaded in a voting hierarchy to permit better scaling + if necessary, as in the following hypothetical example for 4096 CPUs: + + /* first level: local election */ + my_town = towns[(this_cpu >> 4) & 0xf]; + I_won = vlock_trylock(my_town, this_cpu & 0xf); + if (I_won) { + /* we won the town election, let's go for the state */ + my_state = states[(this_cpu >> 8) & 0xf]; + I_won = vlock_lock(my_state, this_cpu & 0xf)); + if (I_won) { + /* and so on */ + I_won = vlock_lock(the_whole_country, this_cpu & 0xf]; + if (I_won) { + /* ... */ + } + vlock_unlock(the_whole_country); + } + vlock_unlock(my_state); + } + vlock_unlock(my_town); + + +ARM implementation +------------------ + +The current ARM implementation [2] contains some optimisations beyond +the basic algorithm: + + * By packing the members of the currently_voting array close together, + we can read the whole array in one transaction (providing the number + of CPUs potentially contending the lock is small enough). This + reduces the number of round-trips required to external memory. + + In the ARM implementation, this means that we can use a single load + and comparison: + + LDR Rt, [Rn] + CMP Rt, #0 + + ...in place of code equivalent to: + + LDRB Rt, [Rn] + CMP Rt, #0 + LDRBEQ Rt, [Rn, #1] + CMPEQ Rt, #0 + LDRBEQ Rt, [Rn, #2] + CMPEQ Rt, #0 + LDRBEQ Rt, [Rn, #3] + CMPEQ Rt, #0 + + This cuts down on the fast-path latency, as well as potentially + reducing bus contention in contended cases. + + The optimisation relies on the fact that the ARM memory system + guarantees coherency between overlapping memory accesses of + different sizes, similarly to many other architectures. Note that + we do not care which element of currently_voting appears in which + bits of Rt, so there is no need to worry about endianness in this + optimisation. + + If there are too many CPUs to read the currently_voting array in + one transaction then multiple transations are still required. The + implementation uses a simple loop of word-sized loads for this + case. The number of transactions is still fewer than would be + required if bytes were loaded individually. + + + In principle, we could aggregate further by using LDRD or LDM, but + to keep the code simple this was not attempted in the initial + implementation. + + + * vlocks are currently only used to coordinate between CPUs which are + unable to enable their caches yet. This means that the + implementation removes many of the barriers which would be required + when executing the algorithm in cached memory. + + packing of the currently_voting array does not work with cached + memory unless all CPUs contending the lock are cache-coherent, due + to cache writebacks from one CPU clobbering values written by other + CPUs. (Though if all the CPUs are cache-coherent, you should be + probably be using proper spinlocks instead anyway). + + + * The "no votes yet" value used for the last_vote variable is 0 (not + -1 as in the pseudocode). This allows statically-allocated vlocks + to be implicitly initialised to an unlocked state simply by putting + them in .bss. + + An offset is added to each CPU's ID for the purpose of setting this + variable, so that no CPU uses the value 0 for its ID. + + +Colophon +-------- + +Originally created and documented by Dave Martin for Linaro Limited, for +use in ARM-based big.LITTLE platforms, with review and input gratefully +received from Nicolas Pitre and Achin Gupta. Thanks to Nicolas for +grabbing most of this text out of the relevant mail thread and writing +up the pseudocode. + +Copyright (C) 2012-2013 Linaro Limited +Distributed under the terms of Version 2 of the GNU General Public +License, as defined in linux/COPYING. + + +References +---------- + +[1] Lamport, L. "A New Solution of Dijkstra's Concurrent Programming + Problem", Communications of the ACM 17, 8 (August 1974), 453-455. + + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport%27s_bakery_algorithm + +[2] linux/arch/arm/common/vlock.S, www.kernel.org. |