Is anyone familiar with the ticket lock algorithm which replaces the basic spinlock algorithm in the linux kernel? I am hoping to find an expert on this. I've read from a few online sources that the ticket lock algorithm is supposed to be faster, since the naive algorithm overwhelms the CPU bus with all threads trying to get the lock at the same time. Can anyone confirm/deny this for me?
I did some experiments of my own. The ticket lock is indeed fair, but its performance is just about on par with the pthread spinlock algorithm. In fact, it is just a touch slower.
The way I see it, an unfair algorithm should be a bit faster since the thread that hogs the lock early on finishes more quickly, giving the scheduler less work to do.
I'd like to get some more perspective on this. If it isnt faster, why is ticket lock implemented in the kernel and why is it not used in user space? thanks!
Is anyone familiar with the ticket lock algorithm which replaces the basic spinlock algorithm in the linux kernel? I am hoping to find an expert on this. I've read from a few online sources that the ticket lock algorithm is supposed to be faster, since the naive algorithm overwhelms the CPU bus with all threads trying to get the lock at the same time. Can anyone confirm/deny this for me?
I did some experiments of my own. The ticket lock is indeed fair, but its performance is just about on par with the pthread spinlock algorithm. In fact, it is just a touch slower.
I think the introducing of ticket lock is mainly because of fairness reason. The speed and scalability of ticket lock and spinlock is almost the same comparing to scalable lock like MCS. Both of them introduce lot of cache line invalidate and memory read which overwhelms the CPU bus.
The way I see it, an unfair algorithm should be a bit faster since the thread that hogs the lock early on finishes more quickly, giving the scheduler less work to do.
There's no scheduler involved. Ticket lock and spinlock are busy-waiting lock, which are not blocked when waiting, but keep check the lock value. The program moves on once the lock is free. The control flow never goes the scheduler and comes back. The reason we use spinlock instead of block-wakeup lock is block-wakeup involve context switch, which is expensive, instead we just waiting and burning cpu time turns out cheaper. So busy-waiting locks can only be used in "short" critical sections.
I'd like to get some more perspective on this. If it isnt faster, why is ticket lock implemented in the kernel and why is it not used in user space? thanks!
It's in the kernel because kernel code has critical section too, so you need kernel space lock to protect kernel data. But of course, you can implement a use space ticket lock, and use it in your application.
Related
I am on my fourth year of Software Engineering and we are covering the topic of Deadlocks.
The generalization goes that a Deadlock occurs when two processes A and B, use two resources X and Y and wait for the release of the other process resource before releasing theirs.
My question would be, given that the CPU is a resource in itself, is there a scenario where there could be a deadlock involving CPU as a resource?
My first thought on this problem is that you would require a system where a process cannot be released from the CPU by timed interrupts (it could just be a FCFS algorithm). You would also require no waiting queues for resources, because getting into a queue would release the resource. But then I also ask, can there be Deadlocks when there are queues?
CPU scheduler can be implemented in any way, you can build one which used FCFS algorithm and allowed processes to decide when they should relinquish control of CPU. but these kind of implementations are neither going to be practical nor reliable since CPU is the single most important resource an operating system has and allowing a process to take control of it in such a way that it may never be preempted will effectively make process the owner of the system which contradicts the basic idea that operating system should always be in control of the system.
As far as contemporary operating systems (Linux, Windows etc) are concerned, this will never happen because they don't allow such situations.
I am learning about interrupts and couldn't understand what happens when there are too many interrupts to a point where the CPU can't process the foreground loop or complete the existing interrupts. I read through this article https://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/interrupt_chapter.pdf but didn't completely understand how a scheduler would help, if there are simply too many interrupts?
Do we switch to a faster CPU if the interrupts can not be missed?
Yes, you had to switch to a faster CPU!
You had to ensure that there is enough time for the mainloop. Therefore it is really important to keep your Interrupt service as short as possible and do some CPU workloads tests.
Indeed, any time there is contention over a shared resource, there is the possibility of starvation. The schedulers discussed in the paper limit the interrupt rate, thus ensuring some interrupt-free processing time during each interval. During high activity periods, interrupt handling is disabled, and the scheduler switches to polling mode where it interrogates the state of the interrupt request lines periodically, effectively throttling the stream of interrupts. The operating system strives to do as little as possible in each interrupt handler - tasks are often simply queued so they can be handled later at a different stage. There are many considerations and trade-offs that go into any scheduling algorithm.
Overall you need a clue of how much time each part of your program consumes. This is pretty easy to measure in practice live with an oscilloscope. If you activate a GPIO when entering and de-activate it when leaving the interrupt, you don't only get to see how much time the ISR consumes, but also how often it kicks in. If you do this for each ISR you get a good idea how much time they need. You can then do something similar in main(), to get a rough estimate of the complete execution cycle of the program, main + interrupts.
As for the best solution, it is obviously to reduce the amount of interrupts. Use polling if possible. Use DMA. Use serial peripherals (UART, CAN etc) that are hardware-buffered instead of interrupt-intensive ones. Use hardware PWM instead of output compare timers. And so on. These things need to be considered early on when you pick a suitable MCU for your project. If you picked the wrong MCU, then you'll obviously have to change. Twiddling with the CPU clock sounds like quick & dirty fix. Get the design right instead.
Is there another reason except for slowing the system a little bit?
I ask it because of nos's comment here:
Why kernel code/thread executing in interrupt context cannot sleep?
Also, interrupts usually require very fast servicing, or you can easily get into all sorts of trouble.
Which kind of troubles could be made?
Have you ever had that your computer was busy working, for instance during startup, and you kept pressing keys, and after a while you just got a beep and those keys weren't registered/buffered anymore? That's an example of what can happen.
If you don't handle the interrupt fast enough, the inflow may be larger than you can handle, and there is no room to queue more interrupts.
Modern hardware and modern OS'es will not run into such limits as quickly as Ye Olde DOS machine, but that doesn't mean that their buffers are unlimited.
Which takes longer time?
Switching between the user & kernel modes (or) switching between two processes?
Please explain the reason too.
EDIT : I do know that whenever there is a context switch, it takes some time for the dispatcher to save the status of the previous process in its PCB, and then reload the next process from its corresponding PCB. And for switching between the user and the kernel modes, I know that the mode bit has to be changed. Isn't it all, or is there more to it?
Switching between processes (given you actually switch, not run them in parallel) by an order of oh-my-god.
Trapping from userspace to kernelspace used to be done with a processor interrupt earlier. Around 2005 (don't remember the kernel version), and after a discussion on the mailing list where someone found that trapping was slower (in absolute measures!) on a high-end xeon processor than on an earlier Pentium II or III (again, my memory), they implemented it with a new cpu instruction sysenter (which had actually existed since Pentium Pro I think). This is done in the Virtual Dynamic Shared Object (vdso) page in each process (cat /proc/pid/maps to find it) IIRC.
So, nowadays, a kernel trap is basically just a couple of cpu instructions, hence rather few cycles, compared to tenths or hundreds of thousands when using an interrupt (which is really slow on modern CPU's).
A context switch between processes is heavy. It means storing all processor state (registers, etc) to RAM (at a magic memory location in the user process space actually, guess where!), in practice dirtying all cached memory in the cpu, and reading back the process state for the new process. It will (likely) have nothing still in the cpu cache from last time it ran, so each memory read will be a cache miss, and needed to be read from RAM. This is rather slow. When I was at the university, I "invented" (well, I did come up with the idea, knowing that there is plenty of dye in a CPU, but not enough cool if it's constantly powered) a cache that was infinite size although unpowered when unused (only used on context switches i.e.) in the CPU, and implemented this in Simics. Implemented support for this magic cache I called CARD (Context-switch Active, Run-time Drowsy) in Linux, and benchmarked rather heavily. I found that it could speed-up a Linux machine with lots of heavy processes sharing the same core with about 5%. This was at relatively short (low-latency) process time slices, though.
Anyway. A context switch is still pretty heavy, while a kernel trap is basically free.
Answer to at which memory location in user-space, for each process:
At address zero. Yep, the null pointer! You can't read from this entire page from user-space anyway :) This was back in 2005, but it's probably the same now unless the CPU state information has grown larger than a page size, in which case they might have changed the implementation.
From time to time you hear stories that are meant to illustrate how good someone is at something, and sometimes you hear about the guy how is so into code optimization that he optimizes his delay loop.
Since this really sounds like it's a strange thing to do as it's much better to start a "timer interrupt" instead of a optimized buzy wait,
and nobody ever tend to tells you the name of the optimizing hacker.
That has left me to wonder if it is a urban myth or is it real?
What do you say, reality or fiction?
Thanks
Johan
Update: It sounds like ShuggyCoUk was on to something,
wonder if we can find a example.
Update: Just a little clarification, this question is about the "delay" function it self and how that is implemented, not how and where you call it.
And what that purpose was, and how that system became better.
Update: It's no myth, those guys seems to exist
Thanks
ShuggyCoUk
This has more than a kernel of truth about it...
Spin wait can be much better than a signal based interrupt or a yield.
You trade some throughput for much reduced latency.
Often this is vitally important within an OS itself.
You allow yourself the freedom to do operations not possible within an interrupt handler
memory allocation for example.
You can get considerably finer grained control of the interval waited since you can essentially measure the cycle count.
However spin waits are tricky to get right.
If you can you should use use proper idle instructions which:
can power down parts of the core, improving power usage/heat dissipation and even allowing other cores to go faster.
In Hyper Thread based CPUs you allow the other logical thread to use the full CPU pipeline while you spin.
an instruction you might think was a no-op could cause the CPU to execute them out of order via the super scalar execution units. The resulting code may get unforeseen out of order artefacts which force the CPU to apply a great deal of effort in terms of stalls and memory barriers which are unwanted.
This is why you let someone else write the spin wait loop for you in most cases..
In Linux there is the cpu_relax macro
on arm this is barrier()
on x86 this is rep_nop()
In Windows there is YieldProcessor
Accessible in .Net via Thread.SpinWait
OS X eschews providing a standard implementation unless you are in the kernel
see this document and note that it encourages the use only of lck_spin_t
As to some citations of using PAUSE for spin waits:
PostGresSQL
Linux
See also the note that this is better on non P4 as well due to reducing power
The version I've always heard is of a group of hardware programmers who developed a special instruction that optimised the idle (not busy) loop of their operating system. This is mentioned in Kernighan & Pike's book The Practice Of Programming, but even there they admit it may be an Urban Myth.
I've heard stories of programmers who intentionally put in long delay loops early in projects and removed them later as "optimizations" to impress management. Never figured out if the stories were apocryphal or not.