> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:ola.liljed...@arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 5:36 AM
> To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Richardson,
> Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC] lfring: lock-free ring buffer
>
> On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 05:17 +0000, Eads, Gage wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >
> > > > 2. On the plus side, the enqueue function design that allows it to
> > > > use
> > > > 1/2 the atomics of mine appears to be independent of reserving
> > > > ring slots, and should transfer over fairly cleanly. I'm a little
> > > > concerned about the performance variability it introduces (i.e. if
> > > > the thread gets into "catch up" mode),
> > > If a thread has to catch up, it means it is using a stale
> > > (head/tail) index (more than one ring lap behaind). Better to try to
> > > load a fresh value (if one is
> > > available) than to iterate over the ring until it has caught up. So
> > > I think this is the better/faster design.
> > >
> > > Catch up mode is not triggered by finding an occupied slot for the
> > > current lap (that was just written by some other thread). Or at
> > > least this is the idea.
> > > If we
> > > find a freshly written slot, we just move to the next slot.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > particularly for larger rings, since real-time software values
> > > > predictability.
> > > > What if the reload criteria was instead something like:
> > > >
> > > > #define ENQ_RETRY_LIMIT 32 //arbitrary
> > > >
> > > > if (old.e.idx != tail - size) {
> > > > if (++fail_cnt < ENQ_RETRY_LIMIT) {
> > > > tail++;
> > > > } else {
> > > > fail_cnt = 0;
> > > > tail = rte_lfring_reload(...);
> > > > }
> > > > goto restart;
> > > > }
> > > > fail_cnt = 0;
> > > There are three cases (slot index must be between q->tail and
> > > q->head + q-
> > > >
> > > > size):
> > > slot.idx == tail - size: slot is free, try to write it slot.idx == tail:
> > > slot has just been
> > > written (by other thread), skip to next slot (tail++) none of the above:
> > > thread is
> > > behind (at least one lap), re-load tail from q-
> > > >
> > > > tail
> > > I think using the retry count actually delays catching up to a fresh
> > > position.
> > >
> > Miscommunication here -- by "catch up", I meant the case where the
> > thread is behind but by less than one lap (the second case you
> > describe). In the worst case, the thread would have to read N-1 (N =
> > ring size) entries before reaching the next available entry, and N could
> > easily
> be in the thousands.
> > That's the performance variability I was referring to, and why I
> > suggested capping the failed slot reads at 32. Maintaining a local
> > fail_cnt variable is a small price to pay (relative to a CAS) to
> > prevent a ring enqueue latency spike.
> OK, I misunderstood. We can reload the private tail from the shared ring
> buffer
> tail earlier. You could actually do this on every failed CAS but I think that
> would
> be overkill. Your design with a retry limit is better, we need to find out
> what is a
> suitable value for the retry limit.
>
Too late for lfring v2 unfortunately, but this idea will actually break
lock-freedom. For example, say the tail index is 33 slots behind the next
available slot. An enqueueing thread would get stuck retrying slots from tail
index -> tail index + 32 until another thread updates the tail index.
> >
> > But you're right that we should still catch the 1+ lap behind case, so
> > the reload criteria could be:
> >
> > #define ENQ_RETRY_LIMIT 32 //arbitrary
> >
> > if (old.e.idx != tail - size) {
> > if (++fail_cnt < ENQ_RETRY_LIMIT && old.e.idx == tail) {
> > tail++;
> > } else {
> > fail_cnt = 0;
> > tail = rte_lfring_reload(...);
> > }
> > goto restart;
> > }
> > fail_cnt = 0;
> Agree.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Using a zero-length array to mark the start of the ring is a
> > > > nice approach
> > > > -- I'll incorporate that into the patchset.
> > > >
> > > > At an algorithm level, I don't see any other differences.
> > > > Implementation-wise, we'll need to nail the memory ordering flags
> > > > to best support weak consistency machines, as you pointed out elsewhere.
> > > There is no pre-acquisition of slots in enqueue and dequeue. That
> > > separate step makes lock-freedom impossible (I think).
> > >
> > Can you elaborate?
> I think lock-freedom is impossible with the initial acquisition of elements.
> This acquisition creates a side effect that cannot be undone or helped by
> other
> threads.
>
> You can still implement a "non-blocking" ring buffer (like your original
> design)
> which hides any delay in threads that access the ring buffer but isn't
> properly
> lock-free (which could be considered unnecessary in a DPDK environment,
> threads may get delayed but shouldn't die or block forever).
>
I think I see what you're saying. For example If a dequeueing thread reserves N
elements and then is preempted, it's effectively reduced the number of
available elements by N during that period.
Practically speaking, I don't think this is a problem. Not just because threads
shouldn't die or block forever, but if a thread can be preempted after
reserving N ring slots (but before enqueueing to or dequeueing from them), the
net effect is those N buffers are taken out of the system. This isn't really
different than if it that thread was preempted *outside* of the ring functions
while holding N buffers -- the application should be designed to be resilient
to that.
> > I don't currently see any other way to support rte_ring bulk
> > semantics, which is necessary for creating a non-blocking mempool
> > handler, so we should clear up any doubt.
> OK, I wasn't aware of this strict dependency on bulk enqueue and dequeue. Bulk
> dequeue (mempool allocates buffers from the ring) should be easy to support
> though. Bulk enqueue (mempool frees buffers to the ring) will work as long as
> the ring is large enough to hold all free buffers so it can never become full
> (need
> to reload head/tail pointers at the appropriate places to avoid spurious
> full/empty status). I assume this is the case, initially all free buffers
> will be stored
> in the ring?
>
> >
> > In the NB ring patchset each thread reserves a number of slots before
> > performing the enq/deq, but doesn't reserve *specific* slots (unlike
> > rte_ring). This reservation is atomic, so that we never over-subscribe
> > valid ring entries (for dequeue) or unused ring entries (for enqueue).
> > This guarantees that the enq/deq operation will eventually complete,
> > regardless of the behavior of other threads. This is why the enqueue
> > loop doesn't check if space is available and the dequeue loop doesn't
> > check if any more valid entries remain.
> I initially thought these acquisitions were just for compatibility with
> rte_ring
> (update the same metadata so that the user can mix MP/MC and SP/SC calls) but
> realise they are there for the bulk enqueue/dequeue. But doing this
> acquisition
> means each enqueue or dequeue will update two metadata variables so creates
> more contention and less scalability. I think it would be good if we could
> provide
> the bulk behaviour *without* this initial acquisition and only update one
> metadata location per enqueue/dequeue operation.
>
Agreed. I see lfring v2 has avoided this on the dequeue side, but I think it's
unavoidable on the enqueue side -- since we can't write ring entries and CAS
the tail pointer in one big atomic operation. AFAICT, slot reservations are
unavoidable there to achieve bulk semantics.
> >
> > This sort of reservation should be compatible with lfring, but
> > requires changes (e.g. two sets of head/tail pointers).
> >
> <SNIP>
> >
> --
> Ola Liljedahl, Networking System Architect, Arm Phone +46706866373, Skype
> ola.liljedahl
