Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:19:14 -0600 From: Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ppc <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: head -r344018 powerpc64 variant on Powermac G5 (2 sockets, 2 cores each): [*buffer arena] shows up more . . .? Message-ID: <20190306151914.44ea831c@titan.knownspace> In-Reply-To: <D9B56EE2-35C7-44A2-9229-D9E4AECAD3E1@yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 19:43:09 -0800
Mark Millard via freebsd-ppc <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> wrote:
> [It is possible that the following is tied to my hack to
> avoid threads ending up stuck-sleeping. But I ask about
> an alternative that I see in the code.]
>
> Context: using the modern powerpc64 VM_MAX_KERNEL_ADDRESS
> and using usefdt=1 on an old Powermac G5 (2 sockets, 2 cores
> each). Hacks are in use to provide fairly reliable booting
> and to avoid threads getting stuck sleeping.
>
> Before the modern VM_MAX_KERNEL_ADDRESS figure there were only
> 2 or 3 bufspacedaemon-* threads as I remember. Now there are 8
> (plus bufdaemon and its worker), for example:
>
> root 23 0.0 0.0 0 288 - DL 15:48 0:00.39
> [bufdaemon/bufdaemon] root 23 0.0 0.0 0 288 - DL
> 15:48 0:00.05 [bufdaemon/bufspaced] root 23 0.0
> 0.0 0 288 - DL 15:48 0:00.05 [bufdaemon/bufspaced]
> root 23 0.0 0.0 0 288 - DL 15:48 0:00.05
> [bufdaemon/bufspaced] root 23 0.0 0.0 0 288 - DL
> 15:48 0:00.05 [bufdaemon/bufspaced] root 23 0.0
> 0.0 0 288 - DL 15:48 0:00.05 [bufdaemon/bufspaced]
> root 23 0.0 0.0 0 288 - DL 15:48 0:00.07
> [bufdaemon/bufspaced] root 23 0.0 0.0 0 288 - DL
> 15:48 0:00.05 [bufdaemon/bufspaced] root 23 0.0
> 0.0 0 288 - DL 15:48 0:00.56 [bufdaemon// worker]
>
> I'm sometimes seeing processes showing [*buffer arena] that
> seemed to wait for a fairly long time with that status, not
> something I'd seen historically for those same types of
> processes for a similar overall load (not much). During such
> times trying to create processes to look around at what is
> going on seems to also wait. (Probably with the same status?)
>
Hi Mark,
Can you try the attached patch? It might be overkill in the
synchronization, and I might be using the wrong barriers to be
considered correct, but I think this should narrow the race down, and
synchronize the timebases to within a very small margin. The real
correct fix would be to suspend the timebase on all cores, which is
feasible (there's a GPIO for the G4s, and i2c for G5s), but that's a
non-trivial extra work.
Be warned, I haven't tested it, I've only compiled it (I don't have a
G5 to test with anymore).
- Justin
[-- Attachment #2 --]
diff --git a/sys/powerpc/powermac/platform_powermac.c b/sys/powerpc/powermac/platform_powermac.c
index fe818829dc7..b5d34ef90c3 100644
--- a/sys/powerpc/powermac/platform_powermac.c
+++ b/sys/powerpc/powermac/platform_powermac.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$");
#include <vm/pmap.h>
#include <machine/altivec.h> /* For save_vec() */
+#include <machine/atomic.h>
#include <machine/bus.h>
#include <machine/cpu.h>
#include <machine/fpu.h> /* For save_fpu() */
@@ -396,6 +397,19 @@ powermac_smp_start_cpu(platform_t plat, struct pcpu *pc)
static void
powermac_smp_timebase_sync(platform_t plat, u_long tb, int ap)
{
+ static int cpus;
+ static int unleash;
+
+ if (ap) {
+ atomic_add_int(&cpus, 1);
+ while (!atomic_load_acq_int(&unleash))
+ ;
+ } else {
+ atomic_add_int(&cpus, 1);
+ while (atomic_load_int(&cpus) != mp_ncpus)
+ ;
+ atomic_store_rel_int(&unleash, 1);
+ }
mttb(tb);
}
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190306151914.44ea831c>