Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:10:57 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: monitor+mwait and volatile-ish Message-ID: <20120926091057.GH35915@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <5062B971.30203@FreeBSD.org> References: <5062B971.30203@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:14:41AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Typical x86 MONITOR+MWAIT is like this (taken from Intel manual):
>
> EAX = Logical Address(Trigger)
> ECX = 0 (*Hints *)
> EDX = 0 (* Hints *)
> IF ( !trigger_store_happened) {
> MONITOR EAX, ECX, EDX
> IF ( !trigger_store_happened ) {
> MWAIT EAX, ECX
> }
> }
>
> In FreeBSD we have this helper function for MONITOR:
> static __inline void
> cpu_monitor(const void *addr, u_long extensions, u_int hints)
> {
>
> __asm __volatile("monitor"
> : : "a" (addr), "c" (extensions), "d" (hints));
> }
>
> Now, let's assume that 'Trigger' is a global variable and
> 'trigger_store_happened' is a check for a particular value in this variable.
>
> Then, with current state of matters, we must either declare the global variable
> to be volatile or use a volatile cast in the second IF. Otherwise, a compiler
> is free to assume that the variable doesn't change between the first and the
> second IF and drop the second IF altogether. And that would make MONITOR+MWAIT
> to miss an event if it happens "between" the first check and MONITOR.
>
> So what's my point.
> - using volatile variable with cpu_monitor requires DEVOLATILE to silence
> compiler warning about discarding volatile; this is unnecessary code bloat
> - adding volatile cast in the checks is easy to forget and adds code bloat
>
> Possible improvements:
> - make the argument of cpu_monitor be 'const volatile void *', the most
> permissive type; this would also be a hint that variable should be volatile
> - add some magic dust to cpu_monitor that would tell compiler to not cache
> the variable; right now I can only think of the "memory" constraint, but it
> seems to be too big of a hummer
>
> What do you think about this?
You might claim that the asm writes to *addr by specifying it in the
output constraint. This should fool the compiler into reload *addr after
the monitor execution.
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAlBixqEACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4g6hwCdHLujvZ0OezxypmrLw8izSFsA
3WsAn1NLKzqqdKnwjmqxY67Sx+HuLx49
=dBY0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120926091057.GH35915>