Re: [PATCH] rcu,doc: lock-free update site

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:40:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 08:50 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Lai Jiangshan (laijs@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> >> Add a document which describes a pattern of using RCU to implement lock-free(lockless)
> >> update site.
> >>
> > [...]
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
> >> +Lock-free(lockless) update site
> >> +
> >> +This article describes a pattern of using RCU to implement lock-free(lockless)
> >> +update site. RCU update site is considered call-rare and it is protected
> >> +by a update-site lock generally. But blocking algorithms are undesirable
> >> +in some cases for some reasons, thus, this pattern may help.
> > 
> > Hi Lai,
> > 
> > Yes, using this kind of rcu read-side lock to protect against the
> > cmpxchg ABA problem is well-known (to me at least) ;) I used this
> > technique in the userspace RCU library "lock-free queue" and "lock-free
> > stack" in 2010*. Please feel free to dig through my RCU data containers code
> > to bring in more data structure examples:
> > 
> > http://git.lttng.org/?p=userspace-rcu.git;a=blob;f=urcu/static/rculfqueue.h;h=b627e450cfdd581692b474d89437e3fd47f18463;hb=HEAD
> > 
> > http://git.lttng.org/?p=userspace-rcu.git;a=blob;f=urcu/static/rculfqueue.h;h=b627e450cfdd581692b474d89437e3fd47f18463;hb=HEAD
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Mathieu
> 
> 
> Hi, Mathieu
> 
> I will try to make simple update site wait-free, so I wrote a simple guide/document
> at first. I didn't notice your work. Your work is excellent,
> I will add some references. I hope you rewrite/pretty this document also.
> 
> The lock-free stack is a good example, but the lock-free queue is not good here I think.

I look forward to seeing the update!

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
> Lai
> 
> 
> > 
> > * AFAIK I introduced this technique using RCU read-side C.S. to deal
> >   with cmpxchg ABA at that point, but someone might have thought about
> >   it before me without my knowledge. My litterature survey so far
> >   indicates that using a double-word CAS on a pointer/counter was one of
> >   the usual technique used to protect against cmpxchg ABA so far. Other
> >   techniques imply allocating elements in a limited-size array (so a
> >   simple cmpxchg can update the array index and counter atomically),
> >   Hasard Pointers, or having a full-blown GC which provides similar
> >   guarantees to the RCU grace period with a read-side lock held.
> >   Ref.:
> > 
> >   [1998] Maged Michael, Michael Scott "Simple, fast, and practical non-blocking and blocking concurrent queue algorithms"
> >   [2002] Maged M.Michael "Safe memory reclamation for dynamic lock-free objects using atomic reads and writes"
> >   [2003] Maged M.Michael "Hazard Pointers: Safe memory reclamation for lock-free objects"
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/