| ================ | |
| CIRCULAR BUFFERS | |
| ================ | |
| By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> | |
| Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | |
| Linux provides a number of features that can be used to implement circular | |
| buffering. There are two sets of such features: | |
| (1) Convenience functions for determining information about power-of-2 sized | |
| buffers. | |
| (2) Memory barriers for when the producer and the consumer of objects in the | |
| buffer don't want to share a lock. | |
| To use these facilities, as discussed below, there needs to be just one | |
| producer and just one consumer. It is possible to handle multiple producers by | |
| serialising them, and to handle multiple consumers by serialising them. | |
| Contents: | |
| (*) What is a circular buffer? | |
| (*) Measuring power-of-2 buffers. | |
| (*) Using memory barriers with circular buffers. | |
| - The producer. | |
| - The consumer. | |
| ========================== | |
| WHAT IS A CIRCULAR BUFFER? | |
| ========================== | |
| First of all, what is a circular buffer? A circular buffer is a buffer of | |
| fixed, finite size into which there are two indices: | |
| (1) A 'head' index - the point at which the producer inserts items into the | |
| buffer. | |
| (2) A 'tail' index - the point at which the consumer finds the next item in | |
| the buffer. | |
| Typically when the tail pointer is equal to the head pointer, the buffer is | |
| empty; and the buffer is full when the head pointer is one less than the tail | |
| pointer. | |
| The head index is incremented when items are added, and the tail index when | |
| items are removed. The tail index should never jump the head index, and both | |
| indices should be wrapped to 0 when they reach the end of the buffer, thus | |
| allowing an infinite amount of data to flow through the buffer. | |
| Typically, items will all be of the same unit size, but this isn't strictly | |
| required to use the techniques below. The indices can be increased by more | |
| than 1 if multiple items or variable-sized items are to be included in the | |
| buffer, provided that neither index overtakes the other. The implementer must | |
| be careful, however, as a region more than one unit in size may wrap the end of | |
| the buffer and be broken into two segments. | |
| ============================ | |
| MEASURING POWER-OF-2 BUFFERS | |
| ============================ | |
| Calculation of the occupancy or the remaining capacity of an arbitrarily sized | |
| circular buffer would normally be a slow operation, requiring the use of a | |
| modulus (divide) instruction. However, if the buffer is of a power-of-2 size, | |
| then a much quicker bitwise-AND instruction can be used instead. | |
| Linux provides a set of macros for handling power-of-2 circular buffers. These | |
| can be made use of by: | |
| #include <linux/circ_buf.h> | |
| The macros are: | |
| (*) Measure the remaining capacity of a buffer: | |
| CIRC_SPACE(head_index, tail_index, buffer_size); | |
| This returns the amount of space left in the buffer[1] into which items | |
| can be inserted. | |
| (*) Measure the maximum consecutive immediate space in a buffer: | |
| CIRC_SPACE_TO_END(head_index, tail_index, buffer_size); | |
| This returns the amount of consecutive space left in the buffer[1] into | |
| which items can be immediately inserted without having to wrap back to the | |
| beginning of the buffer. | |
| (*) Measure the occupancy of a buffer: | |
| CIRC_CNT(head_index, tail_index, buffer_size); | |
| This returns the number of items currently occupying a buffer[2]. | |
| (*) Measure the non-wrapping occupancy of a buffer: | |
| CIRC_CNT_TO_END(head_index, tail_index, buffer_size); | |
| This returns the number of consecutive items[2] that can be extracted from | |
| the buffer without having to wrap back to the beginning of the buffer. | |
| Each of these macros will nominally return a value between 0 and buffer_size-1, | |
| however: | |
| [1] CIRC_SPACE*() are intended to be used in the producer. To the producer | |
| they will return a lower bound as the producer controls the head index, | |
| but the consumer may still be depleting the buffer on another CPU and | |
| moving the tail index. | |
| To the consumer it will show an upper bound as the producer may be busy | |
| depleting the space. | |
| [2] CIRC_CNT*() are intended to be used in the consumer. To the consumer they | |
| will return a lower bound as the consumer controls the tail index, but the | |
| producer may still be filling the buffer on another CPU and moving the | |
| head index. | |
| To the producer it will show an upper bound as the consumer may be busy | |
| emptying the buffer. | |
| [3] To a third party, the order in which the writes to the indices by the | |
| producer and consumer become visible cannot be guaranteed as they are | |
| independent and may be made on different CPUs - so the result in such a | |
| situation will merely be a guess, and may even be negative. | |
| =========================================== | |
| USING MEMORY BARRIERS WITH CIRCULAR BUFFERS | |
| =========================================== | |
| By using memory barriers in conjunction with circular buffers, you can avoid | |
| the need to: | |
| (1) use a single lock to govern access to both ends of the buffer, thus | |
| allowing the buffer to be filled and emptied at the same time; and | |
| (2) use atomic counter operations. | |
| There are two sides to this: the producer that fills the buffer, and the | |
| consumer that empties it. Only one thing should be filling a buffer at any one | |
| time, and only one thing should be emptying a buffer at any one time, but the | |
| two sides can operate simultaneously. | |
| THE PRODUCER | |
| ------------ | |
| The producer will look something like this: | |
| spin_lock(&producer_lock); | |
| unsigned long head = buffer->head; | |
| /* The spin_unlock() and next spin_lock() provide needed ordering. */ | |
| unsigned long tail = ACCESS_ONCE(buffer->tail); | |
| if (CIRC_SPACE(head, tail, buffer->size) >= 1) { | |
| /* insert one item into the buffer */ | |
| struct item *item = buffer[head]; | |
| produce_item(item); | |
| smp_store_release(buffer->head, | |
| (head + 1) & (buffer->size - 1)); | |
| /* wake_up() will make sure that the head is committed before | |
| * waking anyone up */ | |
| wake_up(consumer); | |
| } | |
| spin_unlock(&producer_lock); | |
| This will instruct the CPU that the contents of the new item must be written | |
| before the head index makes it available to the consumer and then instructs the | |
| CPU that the revised head index must be written before the consumer is woken. | |
| Note that wake_up() does not guarantee any sort of barrier unless something | |
| is actually awakened. We therefore cannot rely on it for ordering. However, | |
| there is always one element of the array left empty. Therefore, the | |
| producer must produce two elements before it could possibly corrupt the | |
| element currently being read by the consumer. Therefore, the unlock-lock | |
| pair between consecutive invocations of the consumer provides the necessary | |
| ordering between the read of the index indicating that the consumer has | |
| vacated a given element and the write by the producer to that same element. | |
| THE CONSUMER | |
| ------------ | |
| The consumer will look something like this: | |
| spin_lock(&consumer_lock); | |
| /* Read index before reading contents at that index. */ | |
| unsigned long head = smp_load_acquire(buffer->head); | |
| unsigned long tail = buffer->tail; | |
| if (CIRC_CNT(head, tail, buffer->size) >= 1) { | |
| /* extract one item from the buffer */ | |
| struct item *item = buffer[tail]; | |
| consume_item(item); | |
| /* Finish reading descriptor before incrementing tail. */ | |
| smp_store_release(buffer->tail, | |
| (tail + 1) & (buffer->size - 1)); | |
| } | |
| spin_unlock(&consumer_lock); | |
| This will instruct the CPU to make sure the index is up to date before reading | |
| the new item, and then it shall make sure the CPU has finished reading the item | |
| before it writes the new tail pointer, which will erase the item. | |
| Note the use of ACCESS_ONCE() and smp_load_acquire() to read the | |
| opposition index. This prevents the compiler from discarding and | |
| reloading its cached value - which some compilers will do across | |
| smp_read_barrier_depends(). This isn't strictly needed if you can | |
| be sure that the opposition index will _only_ be used the once. | |
| The smp_load_acquire() additionally forces the CPU to order against | |
| subsequent memory references. Similarly, smp_store_release() is used | |
| in both algorithms to write the thread's index. This documents the | |
| fact that we are writing to something that can be read concurrently, | |
| prevents the compiler from tearing the store, and enforces ordering | |
| against previous accesses. | |
| =============== | |
| FURTHER READING | |
| =============== | |
| See also Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for a description of Linux's memory | |
| barrier facilities. |