diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt | 198 |
1 files changed, 198 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt b/kernel/Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ded69794a --- /dev/null +++ b/kernel/Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@ +Transactional Memory support +============================ + +POWER kernel support for this feature is currently limited to supporting +its use by user programs. It is not currently used by the kernel itself. + +This file aims to sum up how it is supported by Linux and what behaviour you +can expect from your user programs. + + +Basic overview +============== + +Hardware Transactional Memory is supported on POWER8 processors, and is a +feature that enables a different form of atomic memory access. Several new +instructions are presented to delimit transactions; transactions are +guaranteed to either complete atomically or roll back and undo any partial +changes. + +A simple transaction looks like this: + +begin_move_money: + tbegin + beq abort_handler + + ld r4, SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) + ld r5, CURRENT_ACCT(r3) + subi r5, r5, 1 + addi r4, r4, 1 + std r4, SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) + std r5, CURRENT_ACCT(r3) + + tend + + b continue + +abort_handler: + ... test for odd failures ... + + /* Retry the transaction if it failed because it conflicted with + * someone else: */ + b begin_move_money + + +The 'tbegin' instruction denotes the start point, and 'tend' the end point. +Between these points the processor is in 'Transactional' state; any memory +references will complete in one go if there are no conflicts with other +transactional or non-transactional accesses within the system. In this +example, the transaction completes as though it were normal straight-line code +IF no other processor has touched SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) or CURRENT_ACCT(r3); an +atomic move of money from the current account to the savings account has been +performed. Even though the normal ld/std instructions are used (note no +lwarx/stwcx), either *both* SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) and CURRENT_ACCT(r3) will be +updated, or neither will be updated. + +If, in the meantime, there is a conflict with the locations accessed by the +transaction, the transaction will be aborted by the CPU. Register and memory +state will roll back to that at the 'tbegin', and control will continue from +'tbegin+4'. The branch to abort_handler will be taken this second time; the +abort handler can check the cause of the failure, and retry. + +Checkpointed registers include all GPRs, FPRs, VRs/VSRs, LR, CCR/CR, CTR, FPCSR +and a few other status/flag regs; see the ISA for details. + +Causes of transaction aborts +============================ + +- Conflicts with cache lines used by other processors +- Signals +- Context switches +- See the ISA for full documentation of everything that will abort transactions. + + +Syscalls +======== + +Performing syscalls from within transaction is not recommended, and can lead +to unpredictable results. + +Syscalls do not by design abort transactions, but beware: The kernel code will +not be running in transactional state. The effect of syscalls will always +remain visible, but depending on the call they may abort your transaction as a +side-effect, read soon-to-be-aborted transactional data that should not remain +invisible, etc. If you constantly retry a transaction that constantly aborts +itself by calling a syscall, you'll have a livelock & make no progress. + +Simple syscalls (e.g. sigprocmask()) "could" be OK. Even things like write() +from, say, printf() should be OK as long as the kernel does not access any +memory that was accessed transactionally. + +Consider any syscalls that happen to work as debug-only -- not recommended for +production use. Best to queue them up till after the transaction is over. + + +Signals +======= + +Delivery of signals (both sync and async) during transactions provides a second +thread state (ucontext/mcontext) to represent the second transactional register +state. Signal delivery 'treclaim's to capture both register states, so signals +abort transactions. The usual ucontext_t passed to the signal handler +represents the checkpointed/original register state; the signal appears to have +arisen at 'tbegin+4'. + +If the sighandler ucontext has uc_link set, a second ucontext has been +delivered. For future compatibility the MSR.TS field should be checked to +determine the transactional state -- if so, the second ucontext in uc->uc_link +represents the active transactional registers at the point of the signal. + +For 64-bit processes, uc->uc_mcontext.regs->msr is a full 64-bit MSR and its TS +field shows the transactional mode. + +For 32-bit processes, the mcontext's MSR register is only 32 bits; the top 32 +bits are stored in the MSR of the second ucontext, i.e. in +uc->uc_link->uc_mcontext.regs->msr. The top word contains the transactional +state TS. + +However, basic signal handlers don't need to be aware of transactions +and simply returning from the handler will deal with things correctly: + +Transaction-aware signal handlers can read the transactional register state +from the second ucontext. This will be necessary for crash handlers to +determine, for example, the address of the instruction causing the SIGSEGV. + +Example signal handler: + + void crash_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *uc) + { + ucontext_t *ucp = uc; + ucontext_t *transactional_ucp = ucp->uc_link; + + if (ucp_link) { + u64 msr = ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->msr; + /* May have transactional ucontext! */ +#ifndef __powerpc64__ + msr |= ((u64)transactional_ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->msr) << 32; +#endif + if (MSR_TM_ACTIVE(msr)) { + /* Yes, we crashed during a transaction. Oops. */ + fprintf(stderr, "Transaction to be restarted at 0x%llx, but " + "crashy instruction was at 0x%llx\n", + ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->nip, + transactional_ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->nip); + } + } + + fix_the_problem(ucp->dar); + } + +When in an active transaction that takes a signal, we need to be careful with +the stack. It's possible that the stack has moved back up after the tbegin. +The obvious case here is when the tbegin is called inside a function that +returns before a tend. In this case, the stack is part of the checkpointed +transactional memory state. If we write over this non transactionally or in +suspend, we are in trouble because if we get a tm abort, the program counter and +stack pointer will be back at the tbegin but our in memory stack won't be valid +anymore. + +To avoid this, when taking a signal in an active transaction, we need to use +the stack pointer from the checkpointed state, rather than the speculated +state. This ensures that the signal context (written tm suspended) will be +written below the stack required for the rollback. The transaction is aborted +because of the treclaim, so any memory written between the tbegin and the +signal will be rolled back anyway. + +For signals taken in non-TM or suspended mode, we use the +normal/non-checkpointed stack pointer. + + +Failure cause codes used by kernel +================================== + +These are defined in <asm/reg.h>, and distinguish different reasons why the +kernel aborted a transaction: + + TM_CAUSE_RESCHED Thread was rescheduled. + TM_CAUSE_TLBI Software TLB invalid. + TM_CAUSE_FAC_UNAV FP/VEC/VSX unavailable trap. + TM_CAUSE_SYSCALL Currently unused; future syscalls that must abort + transactions for consistency will use this. + TM_CAUSE_SIGNAL Signal delivered. + TM_CAUSE_MISC Currently unused. + TM_CAUSE_ALIGNMENT Alignment fault. + TM_CAUSE_EMULATE Emulation that touched memory. + +These can be checked by the user program's abort handler as TEXASR[0:7]. If +bit 7 is set, it indicates that the error is consider persistent. For example +a TM_CAUSE_ALIGNMENT will be persistent while a TM_CAUSE_RESCHED will not. + +GDB +=== + +GDB and ptrace are not currently TM-aware. If one stops during a transaction, +it looks like the transaction has just started (the checkpointed state is +presented). The transaction cannot then be continued and will take the failure +handler route. Furthermore, the transactional 2nd register state will be +inaccessible. GDB can currently be used on programs using TM, but not sensibly +in parts within transactions. |