If you had no idea what a restorable sequence is the takeaway is about halfway down the OP:
“This is why Linux now provides rseq() which is a much more enlightened solution. With restartable sequences, you actually can get rid of both the mutex and atomics, while the OS continues to fully abstract scheduling. The way it works is you advise the kernel whenever your program enters a critical section of code that you don't want interrupted. It's probably going to be maybe 10 assembly instructions tops. The first assembly opcode should be a move instruction that sets the rseq_cs field. The last instruction needs to be the thing that makes the modification to your global data structure. Think of it sort of like a really tiny database transaction. What makes it go fast, is that the bidirectional communication with the kernel happens via shared memory.”
That’s clever — am I right to think it’s the intermediate solution between locks and full STM, implemented at the kernel level, and with zero abstraction cost?
Maybe I'm just getting old but the "if you don't spend $20,000 on a workstation you're going to be left behind like a dinosaur" at the top of this article is a huge turn off to reading any further. And I say that as someone who owns a workstation with more cores than the author's.
If you had no idea what a restorable sequence is the takeaway is about halfway down the OP:
“This is why Linux now provides rseq() which is a much more enlightened solution. With restartable sequences, you actually can get rid of both the mutex and atomics, while the OS continues to fully abstract scheduling. The way it works is you advise the kernel whenever your program enters a critical section of code that you don't want interrupted. It's probably going to be maybe 10 assembly instructions tops. The first assembly opcode should be a move instruction that sets the rseq_cs field. The last instruction needs to be the thing that makes the modification to your global data structure. Think of it sort of like a really tiny database transaction. What makes it go fast, is that the bidirectional communication with the kernel happens via shared memory.”
That’s clever — am I right to think it’s the intermediate solution between locks and full STM, implemented at the kernel level, and with zero abstraction cost?
Maybe I'm just getting old but the "if you don't spend $20,000 on a workstation you're going to be left behind like a dinosaur" at the top of this article is a huge turn off to reading any further. And I say that as someone who owns a workstation with more cores than the author's.