diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/pi-futex.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/pi-futex.txt | 121 |
1 files changed, 121 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/pi-futex.txt b/Documentation/pi-futex.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..5d61dacd21f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/pi-futex.txt | |||
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ | |||
1 | Lightweight PI-futexes | ||
2 | ---------------------- | ||
3 | |||
4 | We are calling them lightweight for 3 reasons: | ||
5 | |||
6 | - in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work | ||
7 | (or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel | ||
8 | calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace. | ||
9 | |||
10 | - even in the slowpath, the system call and scheduling pattern is very | ||
11 | similar to normal futexes. | ||
12 | |||
13 | - the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex | ||
14 | abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation | ||
15 | relatively simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no | ||
16 | read-write lock support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no | ||
17 | recursive locking, etc. | ||
18 | |||
19 | Priority Inheritance - why? | ||
20 | --------------------------- | ||
21 | |||
22 | The short reply: user-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for | ||
23 | user-space applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve | ||
24 | determinism and well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will | ||
25 | improve the statistical distribution of locking related application | ||
26 | delays. | ||
27 | |||
28 | The longer reply: | ||
29 | ----------------- | ||
30 | |||
31 | Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming | ||
32 | technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we | ||
33 | can see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], | ||
34 | lockless structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current | ||
35 | ratio of lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere | ||
36 | between 1:10 and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless | ||
37 | algorithms often endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. | ||
38 | I.e. critical RT apps often choose lock structures to protect critical | ||
39 | data structures, instead of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are | ||
40 | cases (like shared hardware, or other resource limits) where lockless | ||
41 | access is mathematically impossible. | ||
42 | |||
43 | Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application | ||
44 | design with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing | ||
45 | short-held locks: for example, a highprio audio playback thread is | ||
46 | combined with medium-prio construct-audio-data threads and low-prio | ||
47 | display-colory-stuff threads. Add video and decoding to the mix and | ||
48 | we've got even more priority levels. | ||
49 | |||
50 | So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an | ||
51 | unavoidable fact of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace | ||
52 | apps have a very fair expectation of being able to use locks, we've got | ||
53 | to think about how to offer the option of a deterministic locking | ||
54 | implementation to user-space. | ||
55 | |||
56 | Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority | ||
57 | inheritance only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are | ||
58 | different, there we cannot disable interrupts or make the task | ||
59 | non-preemptible in a critical section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument | ||
60 | does not apply (user-space spinlocks have the same priority inversion | ||
61 | problems as other user-space locking constructs). Fact is, pretty much | ||
62 | the only technique that currently enables good determinism for userspace | ||
63 | locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is priority inheritance: | ||
64 | |||
65 | Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock | ||
66 | [this is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], | ||
67 | even if all critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic | ||
68 | (i.e. all critical sections are short in duration and only execute a | ||
69 | limited number of instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any | ||
70 | deterministic execution of the high-prio task: any medium-priority task | ||
71 | could preempt the low-prio task while it holds the shared lock and | ||
72 | executes the critical section, and could delay it indefinitely. | ||
73 | |||
74 | Implementation: | ||
75 | --------------- | ||
76 | |||
77 | As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread | ||
78 | mutexes involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to | ||
79 | normal futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID | ||
80 | means locked. (This is the same method as used by list-based robust | ||
81 | futexes.) Userspace uses atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without | ||
82 | entering the kernel. | ||
83 | |||
84 | To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops: | ||
85 | |||
86 | FUTEX_LOCK_PI | ||
87 | FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI | ||
88 | |||
89 | If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to | ||
90 | TID fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the | ||
91 | remaining work: if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address | ||
92 | yet then the code looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its | ||
93 | own TID into the futex value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to | ||
94 | the futex-queue. The pi_state includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, | ||
95 | kernel-based synchronization object. The 'other' task is made the owner | ||
96 | of the rt-mutex, and the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the | ||
97 | futex value. Then this task tries to lock the rt-mutex, on which it | ||
98 | blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex acquired, and it sets the | ||
99 | futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace has no other work to | ||
100 | perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains | ||
101 | FUTEX_WAITERS|TID. | ||
102 | |||
103 | If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a | ||
104 | TID -> 0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is | ||
105 | triggered. | ||
106 | |||
107 | If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), | ||
108 | then FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the | ||
109 | behalf of userspace - and it also unlocks the attached | ||
110 | pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes up any potential waiters. | ||
111 | |||
112 | Note that under this approach, contrary to previous PI-futex approaches, | ||
113 | there is no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite | ||
114 | possible anyway, due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.] | ||
115 | |||
116 | Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal | ||
117 | properties of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, | ||
118 | robust-futex, PI-futex, robust+PI-futex. | ||
119 | |||
120 | More details about priority inheritance can be found in | ||
121 | Documentation/rtmutex.txt. | ||