Subject: Re: [boost] [lockfree::fifo] Review
From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-10 12:06:08
Helge Bahmann <hcb_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Anthony Williams wrote:
>>> FWIW there are other ways to avoid ABA than tagging pointers, and
>>> without DCAS on 32-bit, see e.g. this sample implementation of a
>>> lock-free stack:
>> Yup. Incidentally, you don't even need to count the nodes in push,
>> provided you're careful when reclaiming nodes in pop.
> hm, I'm not sure what you mean, I don't think I am counting anything
> but the number of threads in the critical section?
Sorry, that's what I meant: you're counting threads in both push and
pop, but with a bit of care you only need to count the ones in pop. I
haven't examined your algorithm closely enough to know if your code
takes the necessary "bit of care".
>> The downside of this technique is that if the traffic is too heavy then
>> the ref count never reaches zero, so the nodes can never be reclaimed.
> Right, and although I would argue that such a highly contended hotspot
> is a design flaw in itself,
Agreed. Such a highly contented queue is going to take a huge
performance hit due to all the cache ping pong, and a blocking queue
might actually perform better.
> there are ways to do reliable reclaim even
> in that case (e.g. that allow reclaiming an element after the last
> thread that could actually have "seen" it leaves the critical section
> -- can be done with checkpoints similar RCU, so it can even be more
> efficient than the atomic counter I used), yet I am not sure this is
> really worth it
Agreed. You need to use a strategy that works for your use
case. RCU-style checkpoints are one technique that does work, but there
may be better solutions at the architecture level that avoid the heavy
> -- I would like to make an entirely different point
> that has been nagging me:
> I'm not certain that portable, generally useful "symmetric" 
> wait-free (or obstruction-free) data structures for unbounded numbers
> of threads are both a) feasible and b) required. As to a)
> implementations overwhelmingly end up being more expensive than
> locking (as well as less deterministic than locking with priority
> inheritance), and there is also some theoretical basis for suspecting
> this to be an intrinsic property  . As to b), the cases when I
> have needed and successfully used wait-/obstruction-free data
> structures are roughly:
> - bounded numbers of threads with static roles (e.g. producer/consumer
> with single reader/multiple writer or vice versa)
> - strongly asymmetric access patterns (e.g. number of read accesses
> vastly outweighs number of write accesses; or the converse: a producer
> in "interrupt" context, with many consumers in the slow path)
> In the former case, often all operations can/must be
> wait-/obstruction-free. In the latter case the goal is just to make a
> subset of the operations "less expensive" or wait/obstruction-free,
> while the other subset typically becomes "more expensive". Both cases
> are easier to address, cover a large number of use cases and still pay
> off tremendously.
Yes. There are many ways to implement a FIFO queue, each making a
different set of trade-offs.
> Personally I would therefore consider less generic data structures
> more useful, e.g. hash-tables/trees with wait-free read-side path, or
> fast fully wait-free 1:n and n:1 producer/consumer data structures --
> instead of not very portable (DCAS), quite expensive (compared to
> locking) n:m p/c data structures that strive to be egg-laying woolly
> dairy pigs. (I don't consider my stack implementation terribly useful,
> for that matter).
Totally agreed. The egg-laying woolly dairy pigs are fun to design, but
are hard to get right, and often have a much higher performance cost
than a specialized data structure.
-- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action http://www.stdthread.co.uk/book/ just::thread C++0x thread library http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk