+lock-free group again, please don't drop it On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:19 AM bittnkr <bitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If a thread dies at that point, my entire system is broken...
Which means it's not lock-free. > But It can preempts without any problem at near zero cost. Well, if producer is preempted, consumers are blocked from progressing. This is 100% equivalent to a mutex. If a thread is preempted while holding a mutex, it also does not result in any correctness problems. > Em seg, 13 de jan de 2020 03:55, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@gmail.com> escreveu: >> >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:33 PM bittnkr <bitt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > > This blocks consumes from progressing (consuming next produced items) >> > and is effectively a mutex. >> > >> > Suppose the thread A got a local copy of tail in t then is preempted, >> > >> > another thread will get the same tail an get the seat normally. >> > >> > When the previous thread retakes the line, the CAS will fail, because the >> > seat was taken. >> > >> > Restarting the while without any kind of blocking. >> > >> > Where do you see a mutex here? >> >> I mean preemption between succeeding CAS and writing element /NULL to the >> array. >> >> If a thread is terminated at that point, the whole queue is broken (no >> termination-safety). >> >> >> > Em dom, 12 de jan de 2020 04:49, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@gmail.com> >> > escreveu: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:26 AM bittnkr <bitt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Good observations. Thank you. >> >> > >> >> > If the thread preempts on those points, the seat position will be held >> >> > on local variables h and t. >> >> >> >> This blocks consumes from progressing (consuming next produced items) >> >> and is effectively a mutex. This makes algorithm non-termination-safe >> >> and non-lock-free. >> >> >> >> >> >> > After the thread line is restored, the CAS can fail, and the loop will >> >> > just restart in normal flow, without any locking. >> >> > >> >> > I updated the docs, I think is clearer now. >> >> > >> >> > Em sáb., 11 de jan. de 2020 às 05:38, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@gmail.com> >> >> > escreveu: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:09 AM bittnkr <bitt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hello Dmitry and fellows from the group. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If you look carefully, you will see that there is no blocking, just >> >> >> > simple CAS, even the buffer is a common buffer. >> >> >> >> >> >> But consider you look inside of a spin lock, or you take a >> >> >> spin-lock-based algorithm and inline all spin lock code into the >> >> >> algorithm. What you will see is exactly the same -- no blocking, just >> >> >> a CAS. However, it does not really change anything, it's still >> >> >> blocking mutex-based algorithm. >> >> >> One can also combine spin lock state with some data, e.g. a particular >> >> >> value of a data member means "locked" and blocks progress of other >> >> >> threads. It makes spin lock even less visible, but again does not >> >> >> change anything on conceptual level. >> >> >> >> >> >> If I am reading the algorithm correctly, if a thread is preempted >> >> >> between these 2 operations: >> >> >> >> >> >> } while ( (data[t & mask]) || (CompareExchange(tail, t+1, t) != t) ) >> >> >> data[t & mask] = item // now is safe to update the buffer >> >> >> >> >> >> It effectively locks a mutex on the queue and blocks progress of all >> >> >> consumers. >> >> >> >> >> >> There is also a similar blocks on consumer side here: >> >> >> >> >> >> } while ( !(data[h & mask]) || CompareExchange(head, h+1, h) != h ) >> >> >> data[h] = 0 // release the seat >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The queue only sleeps if it is empty out of it is full. But this is >> >> >> > not locking. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > All protection is done by the two atomic variables head an tail. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The cost is constant near a single CAS. For any number of threads. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Take a look on this benchmarks. They speaks for themselves. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > https://github.com/bittnkr/uniq/blob/master/README.md#benchmarks >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Besides I don't have a formal proof, we have a test with zero >> >> >> > checksum. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This is the results I have for a producer/consumer test pushing >> >> >> > random numbers is the queue. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Creating 4 producers & 4 consumers >> >> >> > to flow 10.000.000 items trough the queue. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Produced: 10.743.668.245.000.000 >> >> >> > Consumed: 5.554.289.678.184.004 >> >> >> > Produced: 10.743.668.245.000.000 >> >> >> > Consumed: 15.217.833.969.059.643 >> >> >> > Produced: 10.743.668.245.000.000 >> >> >> > Consumed: 7.380.542.769.600.801 >> >> >> > Produced: 10.743.668.245.000.000 >> >> >> > Consumed: 14.822.006.563.155.552 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Checksum: 0 (it must be zero) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The producers increase total and the consumers decrease. The result >> >> >> > for 10M random numbers is zero. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks for the advices, I'll investigate about this tools. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Em qui, 9 de jan de 2020 04:58, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > escreveu: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:29 PM bittnkr <bitt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Dear Dmitry, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I found a nice solution for the problem called 3 thread >> >> >> >> > consensus, considered impossible on the book The art of the >> >> >> >> > multiprocessor programming. I think that is a breakthrough. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Debating on S.O. with someone about if the solution is solid or >> >> >> >> > no, If it is possible to occur data races, he referred relacy. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > So I'm writing you to ask your opinion about the solution. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Can you take a little look on it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> +lock-free mailing list >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi bittnkr, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At first glance the algorithm at https://github.com/bittnkr/uniq >> >> >> >> looks >> >> >> >> blocking and non-linearizable to me. >> >> >> >> Very similar in nature to: >> >> >> >> http://www.1024cores.net/home/lock-free-algorithms/queues/bounded-mpmc-queue >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Dmitry Vyukov >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All about lockfree/waitfree algorithms, multicore, scalability, >> >> >> >> parallel computing and related topics: >> >> >> >> http://www.1024cores.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Dmitry Vyukov >> >> >> >> >> >> All about lockfree/waitfree algorithms, multicore, scalability, >> >> >> parallel computing and related topics: >> >> >> http://www.1024cores.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dmitry Vyukov >> >> >> >> All about lockfree/waitfree algorithms, multicore, scalability, >> >> parallel computing and related topics: >> >> http://www.1024cores.net >> >> >> >> -- >> Dmitry Vyukov >> >> All about lockfree/waitfree algorithms, multicore, scalability, >> parallel computing and related topics: >> http://www.1024cores.net -- Dmitry Vyukov All about lockfree/waitfree algorithms, multicore, scalability, parallel computing and related topics: http://www.1024cores.net -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scalable Synchronization Algorithms" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lock-free+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lock-free/CAEeQi3skKxWmifUhwRgWGMqkCeF2UN%3DOmNRLTWU21%3DeuUSVvkA%40mail.gmail.com.
