This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] New condvar implementation that provides stronger ordering guarantees.
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at gmail dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, Chung-Lin Tang <chunglin_tang at mentor dot com>, Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot ibm dot com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at tilera dot com>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, Darren Hart <dvhart at infradead dot org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:41:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] New condvar implementation that provides stronger ordering guarantees.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1424456307 dot 20941 dot 122 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <1431713889 dot 25070 dot 17 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20150701221513 dot GA29236 at domone> <1435843502 dot 10077 dot 12 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain> <20150702214838 dot GA10291 at domone> <1435914205 dot 10077 dot 45 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain>
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 11:03:25AM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 23:48 +0200, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > > > > > PI support is "kind of" included. There is no internal lock anymore, so
> > > > > > the thing that Darren proposed the fix for is gone. So far so good;
> > > > > > however, we don't requeue, and Darren's paper states that requeue would
> > > > > > yield better latency in the PI scenario (is this still the case?).
> > > > > >
> > > > You have problem that when kernel keeps FIFO api requeue gives you fairness while
> > > > with waking everything a important thread could be buried by lower
> > > > priority threads that after each broadcast do something small and wait
> > > > for broadcast again.
> > >
> > > If you wake several threads, then the those with highest priority will
> > > run.
> > While they will run that doesn't mean that they will win a race. For
> > example you have 4 core cpu and, 3 low priority threads and one high
> > priority one. Each will check condition. If true then it will consume
> > data causing condition be false. If condition not met he will wait again.
> > Then high priority thread has only 1/4 chance to be first to get lock
> > to consume data. With requeue he could always do it.
> No, if the lock is of a PI kind, the lower prio thread will acquire it,
> put it's TID as lock owner, which then will allow a higher-prio to boost
> the priority of the lower prio thread. So, the locks itself are fine.
> There is no guarantee that a higher-prio thread will be able to grab a
> signal when a lower-prio thread tries to grab one concurrently. But
> that's not something that the condvar is required to guarantee. (But
> note that what the new algorithm fixes is that when a waiter is eligible
> for consuming a signal (and there's no other thread that's eligible too
> and could grab it first), a waiter that starts waiting after the signal
> (ie, isn't eligible) cannot steal the signal anymore).
While there are still issues I realized that it doesn't matter much as
condvar doesn't handle PI well. While it sort-of handles
signal-broadcast it doesn't handle that condition itself is could be
affected by priority inversion.
I don't know how to fix that without allocating memory for each
convar/thread pair to give thread that grabs mutex to satisfy condition