Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 7/8] util/qht: atomically set b->hashes

2016-09-20 Thread Paolo Bonzini


On 19/09/2016 21:06, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> Let me then just point out that this comes at a small perf loss.
> 
> Running 'taskset -c 0 tests/qht-bench -n 1 -d 10' (i.e. all lookups) 10 times,
> we get:
> 
> before the patch:
>  $ ./mean.pl 34.04 34.24 34.38 34.25 34.18 34.51 34.46 34.44 34.29 34.08
>  34.287 +- 0.160072900059109
> after:
>  $ ./mean.pl 33.94 34.00 33.52 33.46 33.55 33.71 34.27 34.06 34.28 34.58
>  33.937 +- 0.374731014640279
> 
> But hey we can live with that.

Hmm it shouldn't.  I'll take a look at the generated assembly...

Paolo



Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 7/8] util/qht: atomically set b->hashes

2016-09-19 Thread Emilio G. Cota
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 20:37:06 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/09/2016 20:06, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 16:51:38 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> > ThreadSanitizer detects a possible race between reading/writing the
> >> > hashes. As ordering semantics are already documented for qht we just
> >> > need to ensure a race can't tear the hash value so we can use the
> >> > relaxed atomic_set/read functions.
> > This was discussed here:
> > 
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg03658.html
> > 
> > To reiterate: reading torn hash values is fine, since the retry will
> > happen regardless (and all pointers[] remain valid through the RCU
> > read-critical section).
> 
> True, but C11 says data races are undefined, not merely unspecified.
> seqlock-protected data requires a relaxed read and write, because they
> are read concurrently in the read and write sides.

Ah I see.

Let me then just point out that this comes at a small perf loss.

Running 'taskset -c 0 tests/qht-bench -n 1 -d 10' (i.e. all lookups) 10 times,
we get:

before the patch:
 $ ./mean.pl 34.04 34.24 34.38 34.25 34.18 34.51 34.46 34.44 34.29 34.08
 34.287 +- 0.160072900059109
after:
 $ ./mean.pl 33.94 34.00 33.52 33.46 33.55 33.71 34.27 34.06 34.28 34.58
 33.937 +- 0.374731014640279

But hey we can live with that.

Cheers,

E.



Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 7/8] util/qht: atomically set b->hashes

2016-09-19 Thread Paolo Bonzini


On 19/09/2016 20:06, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 16:51:38 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> > ThreadSanitizer detects a possible race between reading/writing the
>> > hashes. As ordering semantics are already documented for qht we just
>> > need to ensure a race can't tear the hash value so we can use the
>> > relaxed atomic_set/read functions.
> This was discussed here:
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg03658.html
> 
> To reiterate: reading torn hash values is fine, since the retry will
> happen regardless (and all pointers[] remain valid through the RCU
> read-critical section).

True, but C11 says data races are undefined, not merely unspecified.
seqlock-protected data requires a relaxed read and write, because they
are read concurrently in the read and write sides.

Paolo



Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 7/8] util/qht: atomically set b->hashes

2016-09-19 Thread Emilio G. Cota
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 16:51:38 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> ThreadSanitizer detects a possible race between reading/writing the
> hashes. As ordering semantics are already documented for qht we just
> need to ensure a race can't tear the hash value so we can use the
> relaxed atomic_set/read functions.

This was discussed here:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg03658.html

To reiterate: reading torn hash values is fine, since the retry will
happen regardless (and all pointers[] remain valid through the RCU
read-critical section).

Couldn't we just tell tsan to ignore it?

Thanks,

Emilio