Kernel Korner - Using RCU in the Linux 2.5 Kernel

Read-copy update, a synchronization technique optimized for read-mostly data structures, is new with the 2.5/2.6 kernel and promises better SMP scalability.

The Linux hacker's toolbox already contains numerous symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) tools, so why bother with read-copy update (RCU)? Figure 1 answers this question, presenting hash-lookup performance with per-bucket locks on a four-CPU, 700MHz Pentium III system. Your mileage will vary with different workloads and on different hardware. For an excellent write-up on the use of other SMP techniques, see Robert Love's article in the August 2002 issue of Linux Journal [available at /article/5833].

Figure 1. Hash-lookup performance scales poorly with number of CPUs.

All accesses are read-only, so one might expect rwlock to work as well as this system. However, one would be mistaken; rwlock actually scales negatively from one to two CPUs, partly because this variant of rwlock avoids starvation, thus incurring greater overhead. A much larger critical section is required for rwlock to be helpful. Although rwlock beats refcnt (a spinlock and reference counter) for small numbers of CPUs, even refcnt beats rwlock at four CPUs. In both cases, the scaling is atrocious; refcnt at four CPUs achieves only 54% of the ideal four-CPU performance, and rwlock achieves only 39%.

Simple spinlock incurs less overhead than either rwlock or refcnt, and it also scales somewhat better at 57%. But this scaling is still quite poor. Although some spinning occurs, due to CPUs attempting to access the same hash chain, such spinning accounts for less than one-quarter of the 43% degradation at four CPUs.

Only brlock scales linearly. However, brlock's single-CPU performance is subpar, requiring more than 300 nanoseconds to search a single-element hash chain with simple integer comparison. This process should not take much more than 100ns to complete.

Not Your Parents' Microprocessor

Figure 2 illustrates the past quarter century's progress in hardware performance. The features that make the new kids (brats) so proud, however, are double-edged swords in SMP systems.

Figure 2. New, fast “brat” processors change the OS design rules.

Unfortunately, many algorithms fail to take advantage of the brat's strengths, because they were developed back when the old man was in his prime. Unless you like slow, stately computing, you need to work with the brat.

The increase in CPU clock frequency has been astounding—where the old man might have been able to interfere with AM radio signals, the young brat might be able to synthesize them digitally. But memory speeds have not increased nearly as fast as CPU clock rates, so a single DRAM access can cost the brat up to a thousand instructions. Although the brat compensates for DRAM latency with large caches, these caches cannot help data bounced among CPUs. For example, when a given CPU acquires a lock, the lock has a 75% chance of being in another CPU's cache. The acquiring CPU stalls until the lock reaches its cache.

Cacheline bouncing explains much of the scaling shortfall in Figure 1, but it does not explain poor single-CPU performance. When there is only one CPU, no other caches are present in which the locks might hide. This is where the brat's 20-stage pipeline shows its dark side. SMP code must ensure that no critical section's instructions or memory operations bleed out into surrounding code. After all, the whole point of a lock is to prevent multiple CPUs from concurrently executing any of the critical section's operations.

Memory barriers prevent such bleeding. These memory barriers are included implicitly in atomic instructions on x86 CPUs, but they are separate instructions on most other CPUs. In either case, locking primitives must include memory barriers. But these barriers cause pipeline flushes and stalls, the overhead of which increases with pipeline length. This overhead is responsible for the single-CPU slowness shown in Figure 1.

Table 1 outlines the costs of basic operations on 700MHz Intel Pentium III machines, which can retire two integer instructions per clock. The atomic operation timings assume the data already resides in the CPU's cache. All of these timings can vary, depending on the cache state, bus loading and the exact sequence of operations.

Table 1. Time Required for Common Operations on a 700MHz Pentium III

OperationCost (ns)
Clock cycle1.4
L2 cache hit12.9
Atomic increment58.2
cmpxchg atomic increment107.3
Main memory162.4
CPU-local lock163.7
Cache transfer170.4–360.9

The overheads increase relative to instruction execution overhead. For example, on a 1.8GHz Pentium 4, atomic increment costs about 75ns—slower than the 700MHz Pentium III, despite having a more than twice as fast clock.

These overheads also explain rwlock's poor performance. The read-side critical section must contain hundreds of instructions for it to continue executing once some other CPU read acquires the lock, as illustrated in Figure 3. In this figure, the vertical arrows represent time passing on two pairs of CPUs, one pair using rwlock and the other using spinlock. The diagonal arrows represent data moving between the CPUs' caches. The rwlock critical sections do not overlap at all; the overhead of moving the lock from one CPU to the other rivals that of the critical section.

Figure 3. Timelines for rwlock and Spinlock on Two-CPU Systems



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Can you explain a little more about smp_wmb?

Anonymous's picture

It seems that smp memory barrier is tightly linked with RCU. Codes taking advantage of RCU also use smp_wmb to deal with weak memory-consistency processes, for example, in the routing cache. So, I think understanding this thing is key to the "USEING" of RCU. Thanks.

Re: Can you explain a little more about smp_wmb?

Anonymous's picture

When you are using the linux/list.h _rcu macros along with normal locking to protect against concurrent updates, the memory barriers are taken care of for you. Many of the places where one can use RCU do involve linked lists, so this works much of the time. However, if you are in a situation where you cannnot use these macros, then you are quite right that an understanding of memory barriers is required.

Modern CPUs are within their rights to reorder operations unless explicitly told not to. Therefore, locking primitives on many CPUs contain memory barriers that prevent (for example) the contents of the critical section from "bleeding out" into the surrounding code. Any such "bleeding" would mean that part of the critical section was no longer protected by the lock, which would result in failure. Hence the memory barriers in locking primitives.

This situation means that lock-free operations require explicit memory barriers. A full explanation is beyond the scope of this comment, but the LKML thread starting with this message and this web page are a place to start. If you want a full treatment, Gharachorloo's Ph.D. thesis is a place to finish.