To SMP or not to SMP
John Baldwin
jhb at freebsd.org
Mon Jan 14 20:50:31 UTC 2013
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:15:13 am Bryan Venteicher wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Baldwin" <jhb at freebsd.org>
> > To: freebsd-net at freebsd.org
> > Cc: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba at yahoo.com>, "Peter Jeremy" <peter at rulingia.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:39:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP
> >
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 02:36:59 PM Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > > On 2013-Jan-07 18:25:58 -0800, Barney Cordoba
> > > <barney_cordoba at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >I have a situation where I have to run 9.1 on an old single core
> > > >box. Does anyone have a handle on whether it's better to build a
> > > >non
> > > >SMP kernel or to just use a standard SMP build with just the one
> > > >core?
> > >
> > > Another input for this decision is kern/173322. Currently on x86,
> > > atomic operations within kernel modules are implemented using calls
> > > to code in the kernel, which do or don't use lock prefixes
> > > depending
> > > on whethur the kernel was built as SMP. My proposed change changes
> > > kernel modules to inline atomic operations but always include lock
> > > prefixes (effectively reverting r49999). I'm appreciate anyone who
> > > feels like testing the impact of this change.
> >
> > Presumably a locked atomic op is cheaper than a function call then?
> > The
> > current setup assumes the opposite.
> >
> > I think we should actually do this for atomics in modules on x86:
> >
> > 1) If a module is built standalone, it should do whichever is cheaper:
> > a function call or always use "LOCK".
> >
> > 2) If a module is built as part of the kernel build, it should use inlined
> > atomics that match what the kernel does. Thus, modules built with a
> > non-SMP kernel would use inlined atomic ops that do not use LOCK. We
> > have a way to detect this now (some HAVE_FOO #define added in the past
> > few years) that we didn't back when this bit of atomic.h was
> > written.
> >
>
> It would be nice to have the LOCK variants available even on UP
> kernels in non-hackish way. For VirtIO, we need to handle an guest
> UP kernel running on an SMP host. Whether this is an #define that
> forces the SMP atomics to be inlined, or if they're exposed with
> an _smp suffix.
>
> VirtIO currently uses mb() to enforce ordering. I have a patch
> to change to use atomic(9), but can only do so when VirtIO is
> included in the an SMP kernel (among other constraints - must
> have 16-bit atomic operations too).
>
> (FreeBSD's VirtIO is x86 only for now - but that will be changing
> soon; I haven't looked if other arch's atomic(9) behave differently
> for UP/SMP.)
Only x86 does this weirdness. The simplest workaround might be to require
guest kernels to be compiled with SMP for now.
--
John Baldwin
More information about the freebsd-net
mailing list