Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 Aug 2018 06:58:17 -0600
From:      Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>
To:        Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, FreeBSD <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: epoch(9) background information?
Message-ID:  <1535029097.27158.180.camel@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <68c80dd6-a811-06c1-27d9-25e99e9fd4ed@embedded-brains.de>
References:  <db397431-2c4c-64de-634a-20f38ce6a60e@embedded-brains.de> <3bfedcc3-0dae-7979-2bd4-da83f2c67e87@embedded-brains.de> <5B7E7804.4030907@grosbein.net> <978ae736-89b9-6d83-e2a1-d2834ca8ae55@embedded-brains.de> <90e16238-6e4d-5d3d-499d-2a19a49be78c@selasky.org> <68c80dd6-a811-06c1-27d9-25e99e9fd4ed@embedded-brains.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 12:59 +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 23/08/18 12:27, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/23/18 11:28 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 23/08/18 11:01, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 23.08.2018 15:39, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We used the FreeBSD network stack also on low-end targets
> > > > > (uni-processor) such as MCF548x ColdFire, Atmel SAM V71, SPARC LEON,
> > > > > etc. in current production environments (not legacy systems). The
> > > > > introduction of lock-free data structures (Concurrency Kit) and this
> > > > > epoch memory reclamation makes little sense on these targets (at least
> > > > > from my point of view). However, FreeBSD has still the SMP 
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > option (sys/conf/options) which suggests that SMP is optional. Is a
> > > > > uni-processor system something which is considered by the FreeBSD
> > > > > community as a thing worth supporting or can I expect that this is an
> > > > > exotic environment which will get less and less well supported in the
> > > > > future? I just need some guidance so that I can better plan for future
> > > > > FreeBSD baseline updates.
> > > > FreeBSD as virtualized uniprocessor guest should be supported at 
> > > > full scale,
> > > > as well as embedded applications using single core x86 and non-x86 
> > > > CPUs.
> > > If something should be supported, then there must be also someone who 
> > > ensures that this is actually the case. I don't know the FreeBSD 
> > > community good enough to judge if there is sufficient 
> > > manpower/funding/interest for a well supported uni-processor FreeBSD. 
> > >  From the commits it is clear that FreeBSD receives a lot of 
> > > attention from CDN providers such as Netflix and Limelight Networks. 
> > > They probably don't care about uni-processor system support at all. 
> > > The use of lock-free data structures (Concurrency Kit) and the epoch 
> > > memory reclamation are now a mandatory infrastructure. There is no 
> > > FreeBSD configuration option to avoid this.
> > > 
> > > The Concurrency Kit in sys/contrib/ck has no explicit support for the 
> > > FreeBSD RISC-V and MIPS architectures. So, I guess the fall-back 
> > > sys/contrib/ck/include/gcc/ck_pr.h is used. The atomic support in 
> > > sys/contrib/ck partially duplicates/extends the general atomic 
> > > support of the FreeBSD kernel ATOMIC(9). To me it is a bit unclear 
> > > what will be the future direction in the FreeBSD kernel with respect 
> > > to lock-free data structures.
> > > 
> > Hi Sebastian,
> > 
> > Do you have something like critical_enter() to disable pre-emption in 
> > your OS? If you don't need to support SMP, the CPU pinning in the 
> > EPOCH can be replaced by a critial_enter() / critial_exit() pair.
> Yes, RTEMS has a critical_enter() to disable pre-emption (you could also 
> disable interrupts as a brute force means).
> 
> You still have the lock-free data structure inside the critical section. 
> Currently, this is only ck_queue, so not a real problem. However, in 
> case some more advanced lock-less algorithms would appear with a bit of 
> spinning here and there, then this would need further adoptions for the 
> uni-processor system. Not all targets support C11 atomics in hardware, 
> some need libatomic (a GCC thing).
> 

Freebsd runs on many single-processor systems on all supported
architectures and that isn't going to change.

-- Ian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1535029097.27158.180.camel>