Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] parray: introduce internal API for dynamic arrays

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

15/06/2021 12:08, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > 15/06/2021 11:33, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > 14/06/2021 17:48, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:29 PM Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I had only a quick look at your approach so far.
> > > > > > But from what I can read, in MT environment your suggestion will require
> > > > > > extra synchronization for each read-write access to such parray element (lock, rcu, ...).
> > > > > > I think what Bruce suggests will be much ligther, easier to implement and less error prone.
> > > > > > At least for rte_ethdevs[] and friends.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Please could you have a deeper look and tell me why we need more locks?
> > > > The element pointers doesn't change.
> > > > Only the array pointer change at resize,
> > >
> > > Yes, array pointer changes at resize, and reader has to read that value
> > > to access elements in the parray. Which means that we need some sync
> > > between readers and updaters to avoid reader using stale pointer (ref-counter, rcu, etc.).
> > 
> > No
> > The old array is still there, so we don't need sync.
> > 
> > > I.E. updater can free old array pointer *only* when it can guarantee that there are no
> > > readers that still use it.
> > 
> > No
> > Reading an element is OK because the pointer to the element is not changed.
> > Getting the pointer to an element from the index is the only thing
> > which is blocking the freeing of an array,
> > and I see no reason why dereferencing an index would be longer
> > than 2 consecutive resizes of the array.
> 
> In general, your thread can be switched off the cpu at any moment.
> And you don't know for sure when it will be scheduled back.
> 
> > 
> > > > but the old one is still usable until the next resize.
> > >
> > > Ok, but what is the guarantee that reader would *always* finish till next resize?
> > > As an example of such race condition:
> > >
> > > /* global one */
> > > 	struct rte_parray pa;
> > >
> > > /* thread #1, tries to read elem from the array */
> > >  	....
> > > 	int **x = pa->array;
> > 
> > We should not save the array pointer.
> > Each index must be dereferenced with the macro
> > getting the current array pointer.
> > So the interrupt is during dereference of a single index.
> 
> You still need to read your pa->array somewhere (let say into a register).
> Straight after that your thread can be interrupted.
> Then when it is scheduled back to the CPU that value (in a register) might be s stale one.
> 
> > 
> > > /* thread # 1 get suspended for a while  at that point */
> > >
> > > /* meanwhile thread #2 does: */
> > > 	....
> > > 	/* causes first resize(), x still valid, points to pa->old_array */
> > > 	rte_parray_alloc(&pa, ...);
> > > 	.....
> > > 	/* causes second resize(), x now points to freed memory */
> > > 	rte_parray_alloc(&pa, ...);
> > > 	...
> > 
> > 2 resizes is a very long time, it is at minimum 33 allocations!
> > 
> > > /* at that point thread #1 resumes: */
> > >
> > > 	/* contents of x[0] are undefined, 'p' could point anywhere,
> > > 	     might cause segfault or silent memory corruption */
> > > 	int *p = x[0];
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes probability of such situation is quite small.
> > > But it is still possible.
> > 
> > In device probing, I don't see how it is realistically possible:
> > 33 device allocations during 1 device index being dereferenced.
> 
> Yeh, it would work fine 1M times, but sometimes will crash.

Sometimes a thread will be interrupted during 33 device allocations?

> Which will make it even harder to reproduce, debug and fix.
> I think that when introducing a new generic library into DPDK,
> we should avoid making such assumptions.

I intend to make it internal-only (I should have named it eal_parray).

> > I agree it is tricky, but that's the whole point of finding tricks
> > to keep fast code.
> 
> It is not tricky, it is buggy 😊
> You introducing a race condition into the new core generic library by design,
> and trying to convince people that it is *OK*.

Yes, because I am convinced myself.

> Sorry, but NACK from me till that issue will be addressed.

It is not an issue, but a design.
If you think that a thread can be interrupted during 33 device allocations
then we should find another implementation, but I am quite sure it will be slower.