Às 13:42 de 22/07/22, Andrey Semashev escreveu:
> On 7/14/22 18:00, André Almeida wrote:
>> Hi Andrey,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Às 08:01 de 14/07/22, Andrey Semashev escreveu:
>>> On 7/14/22 06:18, André Almeida wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Feedback? Who else should I CC?
>>>
>>> Just a few questions:
>>>
>>> Do I understand correctly that notifiers won't be able to wake up
>>> waiters unless they know on which node they are waiting?
>>>
>>
>> If userspace is using NUMA_FLAG, yes. Otherwise all futexes would be
>> located in the default node, and userspace doesn't need to know which
>> one is the default.
>>
>>> Is it possible to wait on a futex on different nodes?
>>
>> Yes, given that you specify `.hint = id` with the proper node id.
>
> So any given futex_wake(FUTEX_NUMA) operates only within its node, right?
>
>>> Is it possible to wake waiters on a futex on all nodes? When a single
>>> (or N, where N is not "all") waiter is woken, which node is selected? Is
>>> there a rotation of nodes, so that nodes are not skewed in terms of
>>> notified waiters?
>>
>> Regardless of which node the waiter process is running, what matter is
>> in which node the futex hash table is. So for instance if we have:
>>
>> struct futex32_numa f = {.value = 0, hint = 2};
>>
>> And now we add some waiters for this futex:
>>
>> Thread 1, running on node 3:
>>
>> futex_wait(&f, 0, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32, NULL);
>>
>> Thread 2, running on node 0:
>>
>> futex_wait(&f, 0, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32, NULL);
>>
>> Thread 3, running on node 2:
>>
>> futex_wait(&f, 0, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32, NULL);
>>
>> And then, Thread 4, running on node 3:
>>
>> futex_wake(&f, 2, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32);
>>
>> Now, two waiter would wake up (e.g. T1 and T3, node 3 and 2) and they
>> are from different nodes. futex_wake() doesn't provide guarantees of
>> which waiter will be selected, so I can't say which node would be
>> selected.
>
> In this example, T1, T2 and T3 are all blocking on node 2 (since all of
> them presumably specify hint == 2), right? In this sense, it doesn't
> matter which node they are running on, what matters is what node they
> block on.
yes
>
> What I'm asking is can I wake all threads blocked on all nodes on the
> same futex? That is, is the following possible?
>
> // I'm using hint == -1 to indicate the current node
> // of the calling thread for waiters and all nodes for notifiers
> struct futex32_numa f = {.value = 0, .hint = -1};
>
> Thread 1, running on node 3, blocks on node 3:
>
> futex_wait(&f, 0, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32, NULL);
>
> Thread 2, running on node 0, blocks on node 0:
>
> futex_wait(&f, 0, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32, NULL);
>
> Thread 3, running on node 2, blocks on node 2:
>
> futex_wait(&f, 0, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32, NULL);
>
> And then, Thread 4, running on whatever node:
>
> futex_wake(&f, -1, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32);
this futex_wake will wake all futexes waiting on the node that called
futex_wake(), waking only one futex in this example. They are __not__
the same futex. If they have different nodes, they would have different
information inside the kernel.
if you want to wake them all with the same futex_wake(), they need to be
waiting on the same node.
>
> Here, futex_wake would wake T1, T2 and T3. Or:
>
> futex_wake(&f, 1, FUTEX_NUMA | FUTEX_32);
this would behave exactly as the futex_wake() above.
>
> Here, futex_wake would wake any one of T1, T2 or T3.
>
>> There's no policy for fairness/starvation for futex_wake(). Do
>> you think this would be important for the NUMA case?
>
> I'm not sure yet. If there isn't a cross-node behavior like in my
> example above then, I suppose, it falls to the userspace to ensure fair
> rotation of the wakeups on different nodes. If there is functionality
> like this, I imagine, some sort of fairness would be desired.
