From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:51:39 -0800
Subject: [ltt-dev] lock-free data structures (was Re: [PATCH
	12/12]	centralize definition of BITS_PER_LONG)
In-Reply-To: <4B7EE590.2010807@redhat.com>
References: <1266260686-17588-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1266260686-17588-13-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20100218032554.GG11338@Krystal> <4B7CFE10.8070803@redhat.com>
	<20100218134600.GA5825@Krystal> <4B7D5C45.9020804@redhat.com>
	<20100218160934.GA17107@Krystal> <4B7EE590.2010807@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100219235139.GF6778@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:25:04PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>> Some time we should also add double-long compare-and-swap, that's very
>>> useful for lock-free lists.
>>
>> Do you have pointers to papers describing this double-wide CAS
>> linked-list structure ?
>
> I found 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.86.8494&rep=rep1&type=pdf 
> (page 4) which is a lock-free queue.
>
> The two words are used like this:
>
>   struct gen_ptr {
>     long gen;
>     void *ptr;
>   }
>
> where gen is always incremented whenever ptr is changed.

Doesn't the use of RCU prevent the ABA scenario, and doesn't that make
DCAS unnecessary?

							Thanx, Paul

>> Yes, good idea! Although this won't be available on all architectures.
>> We might have to think of a mutex-based compatibility layer for these.
>
> You don't need a mutex if you use it for a lock-free queue.  You're just 
> better off providing two version of the queue, one for double-word CAS and 
> a not-really-lock-free one for simple CAS.
>
> The elementary operation in that algorithm are reading a struct gen_ptr in 
> a way that can be compared-and-swapped later, and doing a compare-and-swap 
> that checks consistency of generation and pointer and increments the 
> generation.  If you have double-word CAS, everything is very simple because 
> consistency is taken care of by the double-word CAS.  So with double-word 
> CAS the above are
>
>   void *atomicRead (struct gen_ptr *val)
>   {
>       return val->ptr;
>   }
>
> and
>
>   long atomicCmpXchgIncrGeneration (struct gen_ptr *val, void *old_ptr,
>                                     void *new_ptr)
>   {
>       int old_gen = val->gen;
>       struct gen_ptr read =
>           atomicCmpXchgDouble (val, old_gen, old_ptr,
>                                old_gen + 1, new_ptr)
>       return read.gen;
>     }
>
> but even without double-word CAS you can do it because if the generations 
> match, so will the pointers.  So the CAS will be on the generation in this 
> case, and you use the low-order bit as a tag bit for "operation in 
> progress".  It would go something like this (untested):
>
>   struct gen_ptr atomicRead (struct gen_ptr *val)
>   {
>       struct gen_ptr read;
>       for (;;) {
>           read.gen = val->gen;
>           if (read.gen & 1) {
>               /* Unlucky.  */
>               continue;
>           } else {
>               read.ptr = val->ptr;
>               rmb ();
>               if (read.gen == val->gen)
>                   return read;
>           }
>       }
>   }
>
>   long
>   atomicCmpXchgWithGeneration (struct gen_ptr *val, long old_gen,
>                                void *new_ptr)
>   {
>       assert (!(old_gen & 1));
>       int read_gen = CAS (&val->gen, old_gen, old_gen + 3);
>       if (read_gen == old_gen) {
>           /* We are the only ones that have access to val->ptr here.
>              Since the low bit is 1, other threads will lock on
>              atomicRead and fail the CAS in their
>              atomicCmpXchgWithGeneration.  Update val->ptr and untag
>              the generation number.  */
>           val->ptr = new_ptr;
>           wmb ();
>           val->gen--;
>       }
>       return read_gen;
>   }
>
> Now, while the above is certainly fun, I don't think it belongs in liburcu. 
>  However...
>
>> I wonder if we could use a clever RCU structure
>> to mimick the double-wide CAS.
>
> I don't know, I think lock-free queues and RCU are used for very different 
> access patterns (and if you need lock-free, chances are that lock-free will 
> kill your cache and not give you _that much_ performance, so maybe you'd 
> better rethink everything...).  However I'm not expert at all.
>
> Still, related to this, the paper above gives only half of the story. The 
> lock-free queue needs a free list traditionally, and the paper mentions 
> using a lock-free stack as a free list (BTW the lock-free stack doesn't 
> need double-word CAS).  But then, the nodes on the freelist can never be 
> returned to the OS because you can always race with the operations on the 
> lock-free queue.
>
> So, maybe RCU could be used to detect quiescent periods when there is no 
> operation being performed on the lock-free queue.  *Both enqueue and 
> dequeue* would be wrapped in rcu_read_{,un}lock(), unlike normal RCU 
> algorithms because this one is lock free.  Then, in dequeue you'd replace 
> the paper's line D19 with
>
>     defer_rcu(free, head);
>
> Hmm...
>
> Paolo