Synchronizing Accesses to Kernel Data Structures
A shared data structure can be protected against race conditions by using some of the synchronization primitives shown in the previous section. Of course, system performances may vary considerably, depending on the kind of synchronization primitive selected. Usually, the following rule of thumb is adopted by kernel developers: always keep the concurrency level as high as possible in the system.
In turn, the concurrency level in the system depends on two main factors:
1. The number of I/O devices that operate concurrently
2. The number of CPUs that do productive work
To maximize I/O throughput, interrupts should be disabled for very short periods of time. As described in Section 4.2.1, when interrupts are disabled, IRQs issued by I/O devices are temporarily ignored by the PIC and no new activity can start on such devices.
To use CPUs efficiently, synchronization primitives based on spin locks should be avoided whenever possible. When a CPU is executing a tight instruction loop waiting for the spin lock to open, it is wasting precious machine cycles.
Let's illustrate a couple of cases in which synchronization can be achieved while still maintaining a high concurrency level.
• A shared data structure consisting of a single integer value can be updated by declaring it as an atomic_t type and by using atomic operations. An atomic operation is faster than spin locks and interrupt disabling, and it slows down only kernel control paths that concurrently access the data structure.
• Inserting an element into a shared linked list is never atomic since it consists of at least two pointer assignments. Nevertheless, the kernel can sometimes perform this insertion operation without using locks or disabling interrupts. As an example of why this works, we'll consider the case where a system call service routine (see Section 9.2) inserts new elements in a simply linked list, while an interrupt handler or deferrable function asynchronously looks up the list.
In the C language, insertion is implemented by means of the following pointer assignments:
new->next = list element->next; list element->next = new;
In assembly language, insertion reduces to two consecutive atomic instructions. The first instruction sets up the next pointer of the new element, but it does not modify the list. Thus, if the interrupt handler sees the list between the execution of the first and second instructions, it sees the list without the new element. If the handler sees the list after the execution of the second instruction, it sees the list with the new element. The important point is that in either case, the list is consistent and in an uncorrupted state. However, this integrity is assured only if the interrupt handler does not modify the list. If it does, the next pointer that was just set within the new
However, developers must ensure that the order of the two assignment operations cannot be subverted by the compiler or the CPU's control unit; otherwise, if the system call service routine is interrupted by the interrupt handler between the two assignments, the handler finds a corrupted list. Therefore, a write memory barrier primitive is required:
list element->next = new;
Continue reading here: Choosing Among Spin Locks Semaphores and Interrupt Disabling
Was this article helpful?