Michael Neuling | db8ff90 | 2013-02-13 16:21:45 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | Transactional Memory support |
| 2 | ============================ |
| 3 | |
| 4 | POWER kernel support for this feature is currently limited to supporting |
| 5 | its use by user programs. It is not currently used by the kernel itself. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | This file aims to sum up how it is supported by Linux and what behaviour you |
| 8 | can expect from your user programs. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Basic overview |
| 12 | ============== |
| 13 | |
| 14 | Hardware Transactional Memory is supported on POWER8 processors, and is a |
| 15 | feature that enables a different form of atomic memory access. Several new |
| 16 | instructions are presented to delimit transactions; transactions are |
| 17 | guaranteed to either complete atomically or roll back and undo any partial |
| 18 | changes. |
| 19 | |
| 20 | A simple transaction looks like this: |
| 21 | |
| 22 | begin_move_money: |
| 23 | tbegin |
| 24 | beq abort_handler |
| 25 | |
| 26 | ld r4, SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) |
| 27 | ld r5, CURRENT_ACCT(r3) |
| 28 | subi r5, r5, 1 |
| 29 | addi r4, r4, 1 |
| 30 | std r4, SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) |
| 31 | std r5, CURRENT_ACCT(r3) |
| 32 | |
| 33 | tend |
| 34 | |
| 35 | b continue |
| 36 | |
| 37 | abort_handler: |
| 38 | ... test for odd failures ... |
| 39 | |
| 40 | /* Retry the transaction if it failed because it conflicted with |
| 41 | * someone else: */ |
| 42 | b begin_move_money |
| 43 | |
| 44 | |
| 45 | The 'tbegin' instruction denotes the start point, and 'tend' the end point. |
| 46 | Between these points the processor is in 'Transactional' state; any memory |
| 47 | references will complete in one go if there are no conflicts with other |
| 48 | transactional or non-transactional accesses within the system. In this |
| 49 | example, the transaction completes as though it were normal straight-line code |
| 50 | IF no other processor has touched SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) or CURRENT_ACCT(r3); an |
| 51 | atomic move of money from the current account to the savings account has been |
| 52 | performed. Even though the normal ld/std instructions are used (note no |
| 53 | lwarx/stwcx), either *both* SAVINGS_ACCT(r3) and CURRENT_ACCT(r3) will be |
| 54 | updated, or neither will be updated. |
| 55 | |
| 56 | If, in the meantime, there is a conflict with the locations accessed by the |
| 57 | transaction, the transaction will be aborted by the CPU. Register and memory |
| 58 | state will roll back to that at the 'tbegin', and control will continue from |
| 59 | 'tbegin+4'. The branch to abort_handler will be taken this second time; the |
| 60 | abort handler can check the cause of the failure, and retry. |
| 61 | |
| 62 | Checkpointed registers include all GPRs, FPRs, VRs/VSRs, LR, CCR/CR, CTR, FPCSR |
| 63 | and a few other status/flag regs; see the ISA for details. |
| 64 | |
| 65 | Causes of transaction aborts |
| 66 | ============================ |
| 67 | |
| 68 | - Conflicts with cache lines used by other processors |
| 69 | - Signals |
| 70 | - Context switches |
| 71 | - See the ISA for full documentation of everything that will abort transactions. |
| 72 | |
| 73 | |
| 74 | Syscalls |
| 75 | ======== |
| 76 | |
| 77 | Performing syscalls from within transaction is not recommended, and can lead |
| 78 | to unpredictable results. |
| 79 | |
| 80 | Syscalls do not by design abort transactions, but beware: The kernel code will |
| 81 | not be running in transactional state. The effect of syscalls will always |
| 82 | remain visible, but depending on the call they may abort your transaction as a |
| 83 | side-effect, read soon-to-be-aborted transactional data that should not remain |
| 84 | invisible, etc. If you constantly retry a transaction that constantly aborts |
| 85 | itself by calling a syscall, you'll have a livelock & make no progress. |
| 86 | |
| 87 | Simple syscalls (e.g. sigprocmask()) "could" be OK. Even things like write() |
| 88 | from, say, printf() should be OK as long as the kernel does not access any |
| 89 | memory that was accessed transactionally. |
| 90 | |
| 91 | Consider any syscalls that happen to work as debug-only -- not recommended for |
| 92 | production use. Best to queue them up till after the transaction is over. |
| 93 | |
| 94 | |
| 95 | Signals |
| 96 | ======= |
| 97 | |
| 98 | Delivery of signals (both sync and async) during transactions provides a second |
| 99 | thread state (ucontext/mcontext) to represent the second transactional register |
| 100 | state. Signal delivery 'treclaim's to capture both register states, so signals |
| 101 | abort transactions. The usual ucontext_t passed to the signal handler |
| 102 | represents the checkpointed/original register state; the signal appears to have |
| 103 | arisen at 'tbegin+4'. |
| 104 | |
| 105 | If the sighandler ucontext has uc_link set, a second ucontext has been |
| 106 | delivered. For future compatibility the MSR.TS field should be checked to |
| 107 | determine the transactional state -- if so, the second ucontext in uc->uc_link |
| 108 | represents the active transactional registers at the point of the signal. |
| 109 | |
| 110 | For 64-bit processes, uc->uc_mcontext.regs->msr is a full 64-bit MSR and its TS |
| 111 | field shows the transactional mode. |
| 112 | |
| 113 | For 32-bit processes, the mcontext's MSR register is only 32 bits; the top 32 |
| 114 | bits are stored in the MSR of the second ucontext, i.e. in |
| 115 | uc->uc_link->uc_mcontext.regs->msr. The top word contains the transactional |
| 116 | state TS. |
| 117 | |
| 118 | However, basic signal handlers don't need to be aware of transactions |
| 119 | and simply returning from the handler will deal with things correctly: |
| 120 | |
| 121 | Transaction-aware signal handlers can read the transactional register state |
| 122 | from the second ucontext. This will be necessary for crash handlers to |
| 123 | determine, for example, the address of the instruction causing the SIGSEGV. |
| 124 | |
| 125 | Example signal handler: |
| 126 | |
| 127 | void crash_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *uc) |
| 128 | { |
| 129 | ucontext_t *ucp = uc; |
| 130 | ucontext_t *transactional_ucp = ucp->uc_link; |
| 131 | |
| 132 | if (ucp_link) { |
| 133 | u64 msr = ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->msr; |
| 134 | /* May have transactional ucontext! */ |
| 135 | #ifndef __powerpc64__ |
| 136 | msr |= ((u64)transactional_ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->msr) << 32; |
| 137 | #endif |
| 138 | if (MSR_TM_ACTIVE(msr)) { |
| 139 | /* Yes, we crashed during a transaction. Oops. */ |
| 140 | fprintf(stderr, "Transaction to be restarted at 0x%llx, but " |
| 141 | "crashy instruction was at 0x%llx\n", |
| 142 | ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->nip, |
| 143 | transactional_ucp->uc_mcontext.regs->nip); |
| 144 | } |
| 145 | } |
| 146 | |
| 147 | fix_the_problem(ucp->dar); |
| 148 | } |
| 149 | |
Michael Neuling | 2b3f8e8 | 2013-05-26 18:09:41 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 150 | When in an active transaction that takes a signal, we need to be careful with |
| 151 | the stack. It's possible that the stack has moved back up after the tbegin. |
| 152 | The obvious case here is when the tbegin is called inside a function that |
| 153 | returns before a tend. In this case, the stack is part of the checkpointed |
| 154 | transactional memory state. If we write over this non transactionally or in |
| 155 | suspend, we are in trouble because if we get a tm abort, the program counter and |
| 156 | stack pointer will be back at the tbegin but our in memory stack won't be valid |
| 157 | anymore. |
| 158 | |
| 159 | To avoid this, when taking a signal in an active transaction, we need to use |
| 160 | the stack pointer from the checkpointed state, rather than the speculated |
| 161 | state. This ensures that the signal context (written tm suspended) will be |
| 162 | written below the stack required for the rollback. The transaction is aborted |
Carlos Garcia | c98be0c | 2014-04-04 22:31:00 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 163 | because of the treclaim, so any memory written between the tbegin and the |
Michael Neuling | 2b3f8e8 | 2013-05-26 18:09:41 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 164 | signal will be rolled back anyway. |
| 165 | |
| 166 | For signals taken in non-TM or suspended mode, we use the |
| 167 | normal/non-checkpointed stack pointer. |
| 168 | |
Michael Neuling | db8ff90 | 2013-02-13 16:21:45 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 169 | |
| 170 | Failure cause codes used by kernel |
| 171 | ================================== |
| 172 | |
| 173 | These are defined in <asm/reg.h>, and distinguish different reasons why the |
| 174 | kernel aborted a transaction: |
| 175 | |
| 176 | TM_CAUSE_RESCHED Thread was rescheduled. |
Michael Neuling | 24b9237 | 2013-05-26 18:09:38 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 177 | TM_CAUSE_TLBI Software TLB invalide. |
Michael Neuling | db8ff90 | 2013-02-13 16:21:45 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 178 | TM_CAUSE_FAC_UNAV FP/VEC/VSX unavailable trap. |
| 179 | TM_CAUSE_SYSCALL Currently unused; future syscalls that must abort |
| 180 | transactions for consistency will use this. |
| 181 | TM_CAUSE_SIGNAL Signal delivered. |
| 182 | TM_CAUSE_MISC Currently unused. |
Michael Neuling | 6ce6c62 | 2013-05-26 18:09:39 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 183 | TM_CAUSE_ALIGNMENT Alignment fault. |
| 184 | TM_CAUSE_EMULATE Emulation that touched memory. |
Michael Neuling | db8ff90 | 2013-02-13 16:21:45 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 185 | |
Michael Neuling | 6ce6c62 | 2013-05-26 18:09:39 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 186 | These can be checked by the user program's abort handler as TEXASR[0:7]. If |
| 187 | bit 7 is set, it indicates that the error is consider persistent. For example |
| 188 | a TM_CAUSE_ALIGNMENT will be persistent while a TM_CAUSE_RESCHED will not.q |
Michael Neuling | db8ff90 | 2013-02-13 16:21:45 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 189 | |
| 190 | GDB |
| 191 | === |
| 192 | |
| 193 | GDB and ptrace are not currently TM-aware. If one stops during a transaction, |
| 194 | it looks like the transaction has just started (the checkpointed state is |
| 195 | presented). The transaction cannot then be continued and will take the failure |
| 196 | handler route. Furthermore, the transactional 2nd register state will be |
| 197 | inaccessible. GDB can currently be used on programs using TM, but not sensibly |
| 198 | in parts within transactions. |