From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 12 20:27:47 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9BBD50; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:27:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dkandula@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7C5E24E4; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c10so4114681wiw.5 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XEqEByXHjfUcs5/bJZBZJHeOeTUyc7N1mql3Z8f42is=; b=B+xs8obAN2KPWcqkNUjmKSdh7PueMLaltG60qr+W9PKJGDgnhVtYsnX3UyAOf2oj2m SUe2UOhT+E0ky1wrayJAgM2THkuzroGEkNNJWqW0WjFzQY085y5ChcjcOKhmlUpAxph3 pIIYYFRwZ0ZclLbLc2bmMUJ08Z2FUpfgi8xO2iFHs6GVknwNfXhy+fAkprUBAJW8DJQW vBhdL3+SSuzyvHa2nx0xF+O2Ab752WWAhqpJ2Ox458N35xjcdyD7gm4uRWDN+JF9UK5x 3UKfdbSbgc88fSSj8NC2eQHs8FxAVUS4PqkuxdmWi7U3Zj6pby4NnXZZDaLB0MEfbnH5 jatQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.201.168 with SMTP id kb8mr2768137wjc.63.1379017665061; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.38.167 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:27:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201309120824.52916.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:27:44 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why do we need to acquire the current thread's lock before context switching? From: Dheeraj Kandula To: Alfred Perlstein Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Svatopluk Kraus , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:27:47 -0000 Hey Alfred, I can create a diff to add the comments to the file proc.h and commit it if that works. Dheeraj On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Both these explanations are so great. Is there any way we can add this to > proc.h or maybe document somewhere and then link to it from proc.h? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 12, 2013, at 5:24 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 12, 2013 7:16:20 am Dheeraj Kandula wrote: > >> Thanks a lot Svatopluk for the clarification. Right after I replied to > >> Alfred's mail, I realized that it can't be thread specific lock as it > >> should also protect the scheduler variables. So if I understand it > right, > >> even though it is a mutex, it can be unlocked by another thread which = is > >> usually not the case with regular mutexes as the thread that locks it > must > >> unlock it unlike a binary semaphore. Isn't it? > > > > It's less complicated than that. :) It is a mutex, but to expand on wh= at > > Svatopluk said with an example: take a thread that is asleep on a sleep > > queue. td_lock points to the relevant SC_LOCK() for the sleep queue > chain > > in that case, so any other thread that wants to examine that thread's > > state ends up locking the sleep queue while it examines that thread. I= n > > particular, the thread that is doing a wakeup() can resume all of the > > sleeping threads for a wait channel by holding the one SC_LOCK() for th= at > > wait channel since that will be td_lock for all those threads. > > > > In general mutexes are only unlocked by the thread that locks them, > > and the td_lock of the old thread is unlocked during sched_switch(). > > However, the old thread has to grab td_lock of the new thread during > > sched_switch() and then hand it off to the new thread when it resumes. > > This is why sched_throw() and sched_switch() in ULE directly assign > > 'mtx_lock' of the run queue lock before calling cpu_throw() or > > cpu_switch(). That gives the effect that the new thread resumes while > > holding the lock pinted to by its td_lock. > > > >> Dheeraj > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Svatopluk Kraus > wrote: > >> > >>> Think about td_lock like something what is lent by current thread > owner. > >>> If a thread is running, it's owned by scheduler and td_lock points > >>> to scheduler lock. If a thread is sleeping, it's owned by sleeping > queue > >>> and td_lock points to sleep queue lock. If a thread is contested, it'= s > >>> owned by turnstile queue and td_lock points to turnstile queue lock. > And so > >>> on. This way an owner can work with owned threads safely without gian= t > >>> lock. The td_lock pointer is changed atomically, so it's safe. > >>> > >>> Svatopluk Kraus > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Dheeraj Kandula >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thanks a lot Alfred for the clarification. So is the td_lock granula= r > i.e. > >>>> one separate lock for each thread but also used for protecting the > >>>> scheduler variables or is it just one lock used by all threads and t= he > >>>> scheduler as well. I will anyway go through the code that you > suggested > >>>> but > >>>> just wanted to have a deeper understanding before I go about hunting > in > >>>> the > >>>> code. > >>>> > >>>> Dheeraj > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Alfred Perlstein > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 9/11/13 2:39 PM, Dheeraj Kandula wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hey All, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When the current thread is being context switched with a newly > selected > >>>>>> thread, why is the current thread's lock acquired before context > >>>> switch =96 > >>>>>> mi_switch() is invoked after thread_lock(td) is called. A thread a= t > any > >>>>>> time runs only on one of the cores of a CPU. Hence when it is bein= g > >>>>>> context > >>>>>> switched it is added either to the real time runq or the timeshare > >>>> runq or > >>>>>> the idle runq with the lock still held or it is added to the sleep > >>>> queue > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> the blocked queue. So this happens atomically even without the loc= k. > >>>> Isn't > >>>>>> it? Am I missing something here? I don't see any contention for th= e > >>>> thread > >>>>>> in order to demand a lock for the thread which will basically > protect > >>>> the > >>>>>> contents of the thread structure for the thread. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dheeraj > >>>>> The thread lock also happens to protect various scheduler variables= : > >>>>> > >>>>> struct mtx *volatile td_lock; /* replaces sched lock */ > >>>>> > >>>>> see sys/kern/sched_ule.c on how the thread lock td_lock is changed > >>>>> depending on what the thread is doing. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Alfred Perlstein > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > >>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " > > > > -- > > John Baldwin > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > >