[lttng-dev] [rp] [RFC] Readiness for URCU release with RCU lock-free hash table

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com) wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:16:09AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > After 1 year of development, with the last 6-7 months spent polishing
> > > the API and testing the implementation, I think it is getting about time
> > > to release the RCU lock-free hash table in a new Userspace RCU version
> > > (0.7).
> > > 
> > > I recently described the guarantees provided by the hash table in more
> > > detail, and created tests for the uniqueness guarantee for traversals
> > > performed concurrently with add_unique and add_replace operations. I
> > > also added test modes that create long hash chains, to test corner-cases
> > > of the hash table.
> > > 
> > > One small thing I wonder is whether we should document that the hash
> > > table update operations imply full memory barriers ?
> > 
> > The Linux kernel's rule seems good here -- if a hash-table operation is
> > atomic and returns a value, it should imply a full barrier.  So:
> > 
> > cds_lfht_new(): No point in claiming barriers -- publishing the
> > 	pointer to the hash table is where the barriers are important.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_destroy(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_lookup(): Not an update (let alone an atomic update), no barriers.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_next_duplicate(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_first(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_next(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_add(): Atomic update, but no return value, so no barrier
> > 	implied.
> 
> Yep, makes sense. We use cmpxchg internally to perform the update, but
> it could make sense to eventually use a cmpxchg that has no memory
> barriers to perform this update. So I agree on not providing a memory
> barrier guarantee on the "add" operation, since it does not return any
> value.
> 
> > 
> > cds_lfht_add_unique(): Atomic update that returns a value, so should
> > 	imply a full memory barrier.
> 
> add_unique is a bit special:
> 
> - if it returns the node received as parameter, it means the add
>   succeeded, which imply an update, and thus a memory barrier.

Hrm, thinking further: if we make the "add" operation not act as a
full memory barrier, then the add_unique success should not act as a
full mb neither.

> 
> - if it returns a different node than the one received as parameter, it
>   failed, and thus means that it only performed a lookup, so there is no
>   guarantee that a memory barrier has been executed.
> 
> 
> > 
> > cds_lfht_add_replace(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_replace(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_del(): Ditto.

One more point: "del" is similar to add_unique: if it succeeds, we
execute a full memory barrier. If it fails, no memory barrier is
guaranteed. But if we want to make the guarantees relax, we might not
want to guarantee that a memory barrier is present in any of the "del"
cases.

In the end, the only primitives for which I think it really makes sense
to provide memory barrier semantic is the add_replace and replace : they
actually act as an higher-level "cmpxchg" over the hash table nodes.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Yep, makes sense.
> 
> I'll add this documentation in the API.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> > 
> > cds_lfht_is_node_deleted(): Not an update (let alone an atomic update),
> > 	no barriers.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_resize(): Atomic update, but no return value, so no barrier
> > 	implied.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_for_each(): Not an update (let alone an atomic update),
> > 	no barriers.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_for_each_duplicate(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_for_each_entry(): Ditto.
> > 
> > cds_lfht_for_each_entry_duplicate(): Ditto.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > I'm personally getting confident that the hash table API is clean
> > > enough, and the implementation well tested, but I'd like to have your
> > > thoughts on the readiness of the hash table for production use.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Mathieu
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> > > EfficiOS Inc.
> > > http://www.efficios.com
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rp mailing list
> > > rp at svcs.cs.pdx.edu
> > > http://svcs.cs.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/rp
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > lttng-dev mailing list
> > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lttng-dev mailing list
> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com