From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Reader-Writer lock starvation issues
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:13:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210108111358.3b88d51c@hermes.local> (raw)
The current version of rte_rwlock doesn't do what it says in the documentation.
" The lock is used to protect data that allows multiple readers in parallel,
but only one writer. All readers are blocked until the writer is finished
writing."
The problem is that the current implementation does not stop a a new reader
from acquiring the lock while a writer is waiting.
Writer:
repeat until x = __atomic_load(&counter) == 0;
__atomic_compare_exchange(&counter, &x, -1);
Reader:
x = __atomic_load(&counter);
__atomic_compare_exchange(&counter, &x, x + 1);
Fixing it likely would require an ABI change to add additional state.
For more background on reader-writer locks see:
https://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/synchronization/pseudocode/rw.html
The code in DPDK is actually effectively the same as the first example
"Simple, non-scalable reader-preference lock"
It looks like doing the right thing will require increasing the size of
the rte_rwlock structure and cause an ABI breakage.
I am running with an alternative which uses ticket locks to do:
"Simple, non-scalable writer-preference lock"
My recommendation would be:
1. Fix documentation in rte_rwlock.h (and add release note) and put this in 20.02 and LTS.
2. Add new rte_ticket_rwlock.h which provides the correct semantics.
Comments?
next reply other threads:[~2021-01-08 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-08 19:13 Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2021-01-08 21:27 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-01-11 11:52 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-11 13:05 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-01-12 1:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/rwlock: add note about writer starvation Stephen Hemminger
2021-01-14 16:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Stephen Hemminger
2021-02-11 22:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-02-12 0:21 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2021-05-12 19:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-11-08 10:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210108111358.3b88d51c@hermes.local \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).