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.anan...@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. > > 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. > /* 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. I agree it is tricky, but that's the whole point of finding tricks to keep fast code. > > I think we don't need more.
