On Fri, 15 May 2020 17:46:03 +0200,
Maarten Baert wrote:
>
> I'm in the process of adding monitoring support to dmix (i.e. the ability for applications to capture the sound being played back through the speakers) - expect patches for this soon. However while reading the dmix source code I came across something weird. Dmix uses a lock-free mixing implementation based on (architecture-dependent) atomic operations such as atomic addition and compare-exchange. However at the same time dmix also uses a semaphore to prevent multiple processes from accessing the shared memory buffers simultaneously. This is redundant and makes the lock-free implementation rather pointless.
Indeed, this was rather a bug and introduced in the commit
267d7c728196286726b47df45736eba18d78822a
Add support of little-endian on i386/x86_64 dmix
It's a really old bug, since 2007. The semaphore down/up should
have been controlled with the dynamic flag instead of the
conditional build.
So, practically seen, people have been never bothered by this pthread
mutex :)
> Out of curiosity I decided to measure the time it takes to execute snd_pcm_dmix_sync_area for these three cases:
>
> - A simple locked implementation, which acquires the semaphore and then does mixing using the non-concurrent code from pcm_dmix_generic.c.
> - The current (redundant) implementation, which acquires the semaphore
> and then does atomic mixing.
> - A lock-free implementation, which does not acquire the semaphore and does atomic mixing.
>
> The resulting sound is identical in all three cases. (As a sanity check I also tested the 4th case, non-concurrent code without locking, which as expected produces audio with glitches.)
>
> I tested each case with 1, 4 and 20 simultaneous playback streams (multiple instances of 'aplay') on a system with 4 physical CPU cores (Intel Core i7-4770). You can see the results here:
>
> https://misc.maartenbaert.be/dmix_perf_locked_atomic.png
>
> The results are quite surprising:
>
> - The locked implementation is 3 to 6 times *faster* than the current redundant implementation.
> - The lock-free implementation is usually about as fast as the current
> redundant implementation, but has extreme outliers that are up to 3 times *slower* than the redundant implementation when there are multiple threads.
>
> It seems that the overhead of the atomic operations is so high that it completely negates the theoretical advantage of being able to mix from multiple threads simultaneously. This may be the result of 'false sharing' when multiple threads are accessing different words in the same cache line (which is almost impossible to avoid when mixing audio).
Yes, that's a known drawback of the current lockless implementation.
Rather the surprising (or infamous) point is that the buffer access
costs very much. I guess the difference became more significant on
the modern CPUs.
Also, such an effect is more visible when the allocated memory has a
non-cached attribute. I experienced the almost unacceptable delay by
dmix on Atom HDMI playback, for example.
> On a related note, I believe that I have also found a bug in the lock-free implementation. The logic which is used to clear the 'sum' buffer is as follows:
>
> sample = *src;
> old_sample = *sum;
> if (ARCH_CMPXCHG(dst, 0, 1) == 0)
> sample -= old_sample;
> ARCH_ADD(sum, sample);
>
> This takes advantage of the fact that the hardware driver clears the playback buffer after reading it. However it does not account for the possibility that 'dst' might be zero for other reasons, such as:
>
> - An application plays back silence.
> - An application plays back sound, but then rewinds it.
> - Multiple applications play back sound which just happens to sum to zero occasionally.
>
> These all result in situations where 'dst' is changed from 0 to 1 by the compare-exchange operation, but then changed back to zero later, resulting in the classic 'ABA problem'. However this problem is currently hidden by the fact that the lock-free implementation is in fact still locked.
Hm, I'm not sure whether whether this really leads to the deadlock,
but I can't exclude such a possibility in some corner cases.
> Because of these reasons I think it would be better to drop the lock-free implementation entirely and just use the existing non-concurrent architecture-independent implementation from pcm_dmix_generic.c. Aside from being faster, it would also eliminate a lot of architecture-dependent code and inline assembly. Should I submit a patch for this?
The advantage of lockless dmix implementation isn't about its CPU usage
but the nature where a stream isn't prevented by other streams, which
assures the very low latency, too. That is, with the generic dmix, a
stream can be still halted when another stream stalls in the middle,
and there is no way to recover from it.
So, IMO, we can start with a dynamic configuration to choose the
behavior and add a configure option to choose the implementations.
The default behavior should be still an open question, though.
thanks,
Takashi
