On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:06 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2019/01/08 07:54:16 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On 2019/01/07 10:33:17 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:49:19PM +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm reading hash_resize recently, and have a few questions regarding
> >>> this algorithm. Please take a look if you have time. Any suggestions
> >>> are warmly welcomed.
> >>>
> >>> === Question 1 ===
> >>> In hash_resize.c : hashtab_lock_mod
> >>> 186 if (b > READ_ONCE(htp->ht_resize_cur)) {
> >>> 187 lsp->hbp[1] = NULL;
> >>> 188 return;
> >>> 189 }
> >>> 190 htp = rcu_dereference(htp->ht_new);
> >>>
> >>> It seems we are missing a barrier (e.g., smp_mb) in between lines 189
> >>> and 190, because neither READ_ONCE() nor rcu_dereference() can prevent
> >>> compilers and hardware from reordering the two unrelated variables,
> >>> ht_resize_cur and ht_new. Is my understanding correct?
> >>
> >> Ah, but hashtab_lock_mod() is invoked within an RCU read-side critical
> >> section
> >
> > You mean "rcu_read_lock() at the beginning of hashtab_lock_mod() starts
> > an RCU read-side critical section", don't you?
> >
> >> and there is a synchronize_rcu() between the update to ->ht_new
> >> and the updates to ->ht_resize_cur. For more details on how this works,
> >> please see https://lwn.net/Articles/573497/.
> >>
> >> Of course, if you find a code path in which a call to hashtab_lock_mod()
> >> is invoked outside of an RCU read-side critical section, that would be
> >> a bug. (Can you tell me an exception to this rule, that is, a case
> >> where hashtab_lock_mod() could safely be invoked outside of an RCU
> >> read-side critical section?)
> >>
> >>> === Question 2 ===
> >>> In hash_resize.c, each time an updater wants to access a bucket, the
> >>> updater must first acquire the bucket's lock (htb_lock), preventing
> >>> other updaters accessing the same bucket concurrently. This approach
> >>> is OK if the linked list of a bucket is relatively short, but for a
> >>> larger system where linked lists are long enough and the
> >>> perftest_resize thread is running simultaneously, it could become a
> >>> potential performance bottleneck. One naive solution is to allow
> >>> multiple updaters to access the same bucket, only if they don't
> >>> operate on the same item of the list of this bucket. I wonder if there
> >>> are any existing works or discussions on this topic?
> >>
> >> One approach is to use a hashed array of locks, and to hash a given
> >> element's address to locate the lock to be used. Please see
> >> Section 7.1.1.5 ("Conditional Locking") and Section 7.1.1.6 ("Acquire
> >> Needed Locks First"), including Quick Quiz 7.9, for additional details.
> >>
> >> Another approach is to use RCU to protect traversals, and locks within the
> >> linked-list elements themselves. These locks are conditionally acquired
> >> (again, please see Section 7.1.1.5), and deadlock is avoided by acquiring
> >> them in list order, and the tricks in Quick Quiz 7.9.
> >>
> >> Non-blocking synchronization can also be used, but it is often quite a
> >> bit more complicated. See for example the split-order list of Shalev
> >> and Shavit, along with Desnoyers's RCU-protected extension in the
> >> userspace RCU library.
> >>
> >> But it is usually -way- better to just choose a good hash function and
> >> to increase the number of buckets. Which is of course one reason for
> >> having resizable hash tables. ;-)
> >>
> >> But the other techniques can be useful in more complex linked data
> >> structures, such as graphs, where there is no reasonable way to
> >> partition the data. Nevertheless, many people choose to do the
> >> partitioning anyway, especially on distributed systems.
> >>
> >>> === Question 3 ===
> >>> Chapter Data Structures also discusses other resizable hash tables,
> >>> namely "Resizable, scalable, concurrent hash tables via relativistic
> >>> programming" from Josh Triplett, which can save memory footprint by
> >>> using a single pair of pointers. But my understanding is that
> >>> perftest_resize.c is unique in that it allows you to rebuild the hash
> >>> table by utilizing a different hash function, which could be very
> >>> useful in practice (e.g., to prevent DDoS attack). Other solutions do
> >>> not share this property. Is my understanding correct? Did I miss any
> >>> discussions on this topic in perfbook?
> >>
> >> Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, Herbert Xu's pointer-pair approach
> >> (which I use in hash_resize.c) is the only one allowing arbitrary changes
> >> to hash functions. I expect that this advantage will become increasingly
> >> important as security issues become more challenging. Furthermore, I
> >> suspect that the pointer-pair approach is faster and more scalable.
> >> It is certainly simpler.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, one advantage of the other two approaches is decreased
> >> memory consumption.
> >>
> >> Another advantage of Josh Triplett's pointer-unzip approach is that
> >> concurrent updates are (in theory, anyway) not blocked for as long
> >> by resize operations. The other edge of this sword is that resizing
> >> is much slower, given the need to wait for many RCU grace periods.
> >>
> >> Another advantage of Mathieu Desnoyers's RCUified variant of Shalev
> >> and Shavit's split-order list is that all operations are non-blocking,
> >> which can be important on massively overloaded systems, such as one
> >> might find in cloud computing.
> >>
> >>> === Question 4 ===
> >>> In the current implementation of hash_resize.c, the perftest_resize
> >>> could block an updater, and vice versa. It seems this is not what we
> >>> expected. Ideally, they should be allowed to run concurrently, or at
> >>> least the perftest_resize thread should have lower priority and
> >>> updaters should never be blocked by the perftest_resize thread. Is
> >>> that right? I'm very interested in helping improve. Please let me know
> >>> if you have any suggestions.
> >>
> >> In hash_resize.c, an updater is blocked only for the time required to
> >> redisposition a bucket. This is a great improvement over blocking
> >> updaters for the full resize over all buckets.
> >>
> >> But yes, it is not hard to do better, for example, periodically dropping
> >> the old-table lock in hashtab_resize(). This requires a few careful
> >> adjustments, of course. Can you tell me what these adjustments are?
> >>
> >> Hmmm... I could simplify hashtab_lookup(), couldn't I? After all,
> >> optimizing for the race with hashtab_resize() doesn't make a whole lot
> >> of sense. Please see the patch below. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Thanx, Paul
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> commit 737646a9c868d841b32199b52f5569668975953e
> >> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Mon Jan 7 10:29:14 2019 -0800
> >>
> >> datastruct/hash: Simplify hashtab_lookup()
> >>
> >> Because resizing leaves the old hash table intact, and because lookups
> >> are carried out within RCU read-side critical sections (which prevent
> >> a second resizing operation from starting), there is no need for a
> >> lookup to search anywhere but in the old hash table. And in the common
> >> case, there is no resize, so there is no new hash table. Therefore,
> >> eliminating the check for resizing speeds things up in the common
> >> case. In addition, this simplifies the code.
> >>
> >> This commit therefore eliminates the ht_get_bucket() function,
> >> renames the ht_get_bucket_single() function to ht_get_bucket(),
> >> and modifies callers appropriately.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/CodeSamples/datastruct/hash/hash_resize.c b/CodeSamples/datastruct/hash/hash_resize.c
> >> index 29e05f907200..be4157959b83 100644
> >> --- a/CodeSamples/datastruct/hash/hash_resize.c
> >> +++ b/CodeSamples/datastruct/hash/hash_resize.c
> >> @@ -124,8 +124,7 @@ void hashtab_free(struct hashtab *htp_master)
> >> //\begin{snippet}[labelbase=ln:datastruct:hash_resize:get_bucket,commandchars=\\\@\$]
> >> /* Get hash bucket corresponding to key, ignoring the possibility of resize. */
> >> static struct ht_bucket * //\lnlbl{single:b}
> >> -ht_get_bucket_single(struct ht *htp, void *key, long *b,
> >> - unsigned long *h)
> >> +ht_get_bucket(struct ht *htp, void *key, long *b, unsigned long *h)
> >> {
> >> unsigned long hash = htp->ht_gethash(key);
> >>
> >> @@ -134,24 +133,6 @@ ht_get_bucket_single(struct ht *htp, void *key, long *b,
> >> *h = hash; //\lnlbl{single:h}
> >> return &htp->ht_bkt[*b]; //\lnlbl{single:return}
> >> } //\lnlbl{single:e}
> >> -
> >> -/* Get hash bucket correesponding to key, accounting for resize. */
> >> -static struct ht_bucket * //\lnlbl{b}
> >> -ht_get_bucket(struct ht **htp, void *key, long *b, int *i)
> >> -{
> >> - struct ht_bucket *htbp;
> >> -
> >> - htbp = ht_get_bucket_single(*htp, key, b, NULL); //\lnlbl{call_single}
> >> - //\fcvexclude
> >> - if (*b <= READ_ONCE((*htp)->ht_resize_cur)) { //\lnlbl{resized}
> >> - smp_mb(); /* order ->ht_resize_cur before ->ht_new. */
> >
> > If we can remove this memory barrier, the counterpart smp_mb() in
> > hashtab_resize() becomes unnecessary, doesn't it?
>
> And the WRITE_ONCE() in the following line.
>
> Thanks, Akira
> >
> > Thanks, Akira
> >
> >> - *htp = rcu_dereference((*htp)->ht_new); //\lnlbl{newtable}
> >> - htbp = ht_get_bucket_single(*htp, key, b, NULL); //\lnlbl{newbucket}
> >> - }
> >> - if (i) //\lnlbl{chk_i}
> >> - *i = (*htp)->ht_idx; //\lnlbl{set_idx}
> >> - return htbp; //\lnlbl{return}
> >> -} //\lnlbl{e}
> >> //\end{snippet}
> >>
> >> /* Read-side lock/unlock functions. */
> >> @@ -178,7 +159,7 @@ hashtab_lock_mod(struct hashtab *htp_master, void *key,
> >>
> >> rcu_read_lock(); //\lnlbl{l:rcu_lock}
> >> htp = rcu_dereference(htp_master->ht_cur); //\lnlbl{l:refhashtbl}
> >> - htbp = ht_get_bucket_single(htp, key, &b, &h); //\lnlbl{l:refbucket}
> >> + htbp = ht_get_bucket(htp, key, &b, &h); //\lnlbl{l:refbucket}
> >> spin_lock(&htbp->htb_lock); //\lnlbl{l:acq_bucket}
> >> lsp->hbp[0] = htbp; //\lnlbl{l:lsp0b}
> >> lsp->hls_idx[0] = htp->ht_idx;
> >> @@ -188,7 +169,7 @@ hashtab_lock_mod(struct hashtab *htp_master, void *key,
> >> return; //\lnlbl{l:fastret1}
> >> }
> >> htp = rcu_dereference(htp->ht_new); //\lnlbl{l:new_hashtbl}
> >> - htbp = ht_get_bucket_single(htp, key, &b, &h); //\lnlbl{l:get_newbkt}
> >> + htbp = ht_get_bucket(htp, key, &b, &h); //\lnlbl{l:get_newbkt}
> >> spin_lock(&htbp->htb_lock); //\lnlbl{l:acq_newbkt}
> >> lsp->hbp[1] = htbp; //\lnlbl{l:lsp1b}
> >> lsp->hls_idx[1] = htp->ht_idx;
> >> @@ -223,16 +204,15 @@ struct ht_elem * //\lnlbl{lkp:b}
> >> hashtab_lookup(struct hashtab *htp_master, void *key)
> >> {
> >> long b;
> >> - int i;
> >> struct ht *htp;
> >> struct ht_elem *htep;
> >> struct ht_bucket *htbp;
> >>
> >> htp = rcu_dereference(htp_master->ht_cur); //\lnlbl{lkp:get_curtbl}
> >> - htbp = ht_get_bucket(&htp, key, &b, &i); //\lnlbl{lkp:get_curbkt}
> >> + htbp = ht_get_bucket(htp, key, &b, NULL); //\lnlbl{lkp:get_curbkt}
> >> cds_list_for_each_entry_rcu(htep, //\lnlbl{lkp:loop:b}
> >> &htbp->htb_head,
> >> - hte_next[i]) {
> >> + hte_next[htp->ht_idx]) {
> >> if (htp->ht_cmp(htep, key)) //\lnlbl{lkp:match}
> >> return htep; //\lnlbl{lkp:ret_match}
> >> } //\lnlbl{lkp:loop:e}
> >> @@ -303,7 +283,7 @@ int hashtab_resize(struct hashtab *htp_master,
> >> htbp = &htp->ht_bkt[i]; //\lnlbl{get_oldcur}
> >> spin_lock(&htbp->htb_lock); //\lnlbl{acq_oldcur}
> >> cds_list_for_each_entry(htep, &htbp->htb_head, hte_next[idx]) { //\lnlbl{loop_list:b}
> >> - htbp_new = ht_get_bucket_single(htp_new, htp_new->ht_getkey(htep), &b, NULL);
> >> + htbp_new = ht_get_bucket(htp_new, htp_new->ht_getkey(htep), &b, NULL);
> >> spin_lock(&htbp_new->htb_lock);
> >> cds_list_add_rcu(&htep->hte_next[!idx], &htbp_new->htb_head);
> >> spin_unlock(&htbp_new->htb_lock);
> >> diff --git a/datastruct/datastruct.tex b/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> >> index 5c61bf5e2389..0152437c274e 100644
> >> --- a/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> >> +++ b/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> >> @@ -966,10 +966,8 @@ the old table.
> >> \begin{lineref}[ln:datastruct:hash_resize:get_bucket]
> >> Bucket selection is shown in
> >> Listing~\ref{lst:datastruct:Resizable Hash-Table Bucket Selection},
> >> -which shows \co{ht_get_bucket_single()} on
> >> -lines~\lnref{single:b}-\lnref{single:e} and
> >> -\co{ht_get_bucket()} on lines~\lnref{b}-\lnref{e}.
> >> -The \co{ht_get_bucket_single()} function returns a reference to the bucket
> >> +which shows \co{ht_get_bucket()}.
> >> +This function returns a reference to the bucket
> >> corresponding to the specified key in the specified hash table, without
> >> making any allowances for resizing.
> >> It also stores the bucket index corresponding to the key into the location
> >> @@ -978,36 +976,6 @@ line~\lnref{single:gethash}, and the corresponding
> >> hash value corresponding to the key into the location
> >> referenced by parameter~\co{h} (if non-\co{NULL}) on line~\lnref{single:h}.
> >> Line~\lnref{single:return} then returns a reference to the corresponding bucket.
> >> -
> >> -The \co{ht_get_bucket()} function handles hash-table selection, invoking
> >> -\co{ht_get_bucket_single()} on
> >> -line~\lnref{call_single} to select the bucket
> >> -corresponding to the hash in the current
> >> -hash table, storing the hash value through parameter~\co{b}.
> >> -If line~\lnref{resized} determines that the table is being resized and that
> >> -line~\lnref{call_single}'s bucket has already been distributed across the new hash
> >> -table, then line~\lnref{newtable} selects the new hash table and
> >> -line~\lnref{newbucket}
> >> -selects the bucket corresponding to the hash in the new hash table,
> >> -again storing the hash value through parameter~\co{b}.
> >> -\end{lineref}
> >> -
> >> -\QuickQuiz{}
> >> - The code in
> >> - Listing~\ref{lst:datastruct:Resizable Hash-Table Bucket Selection}
> >> - computes the hash twice!
> >> - Why this blatant inefficiency?
> >> -\QuickQuizAnswer{
> >> - The reason is that the old and new hash tables might have
> >> - completely different hash functions, so that a hash computed
> >> - for the old table might be completely irrelevant to the
> >> - new table.
> >> -} \QuickQuizEnd
> >> -
> >> -\begin{lineref}[ln:datastruct:hash_resize:get_bucket]
> >> -If line~\lnref{chk_i} finds that parameter~\co{i} is non-\co{NULL}, then
> >> -line~\lnref{set_idx} stores the pointer-set index for the selected hash table.
> >> -Finally, line~\lnref{return} returns a reference to the selected hash bucket.
> >> \end{lineref}
> >>
> >> \QuickQuiz{}
> >> @@ -1021,10 +989,8 @@ Finally, line~\lnref{return} returns a reference to the selected hash bucket.
> >> functions described next.
> >> } \QuickQuizEnd
> >>
> >> -This implementation of
> >> -\co{ht_get_bucket_single()} and \co{ht_get_bucket()}
> >> -permit lookups and modifications to run concurrently
> >> -with a resize operation.
> >> +This implementation of \co{ht_get_bucket()} permits lookups and
> >> +modifications to run concurrently with a resize operation.
> >>
> >> \begin{listing}[tb]
> >> \input{CodeSamples/datastruct/hash/hash_resize@lock_unlock_mod.fcv}
> >> @@ -1129,11 +1095,6 @@ hash lookups.
> >> Line~\lnref{get_curtbl} fetches the current hash table and
> >> line~\lnref{get_curbkt} obtains a reference
> >> to the bucket corresponding to the specified key.
> >> -This bucket will be located in a new resized hash table when a
> >> -resize operation has progressed past the bucket in the old hash
> >> -table that contained the desired data element.
> >> -Note that line~\lnref{get_curbkt} also passes back the index that will be
> >> -used to select the correct set of pointers from the pair in each element.
> >> The loop spanning lines~\lnref{loop:b}-\lnref{loop:e} searches the bucket,
> >> so that if line~\lnref{match}
> >> detects a match,
> >> @@ -1144,22 +1105,17 @@ failure.
> >> \end{lineref}
> >>
> >> \QuickQuiz{}
> >> - In the \co{hashtab_lookup()} function in
> >> - Listing~\ref{lst:datastruct:Resizable Hash-Table Access Functions},
> >> - the code carefully finds the right bucket in the new hash table
> >> - if the element to be looked up has already been distributed
> >> - by a concurrent resize operation.
> >> - This seems wasteful for RCU-protected lookups.
> >> - Why not just stick with the old hash table in this case?
> >> + \begin{lineref}[ln:datastruct:hash_resize:access:lkp]
> >> + What if execution reaches line~\lnref{loop:b}
> >> + of \co{hashtab_lookup()} in
> >> + Listing~\ref{lst:datastruct:Resizable Hash-Table Access Functions}
> >> + just after this bucket has been resized.
> >> + Won't that result in lookup failures?
> >> + \end{lineref}
> >> \QuickQuizAnswer{
> >> - Suppose that a resize operation begins and distributes half of
> >> - the old table's buckets to the new table.
> >> - Suppose further that a thread adds a new element that goes into
> >> - one of the already-distributed buckets, and that this same thread
> >> - now looks up this newly added element.
> >> - If lookups unconditionally traversed only the old hash table,
> >> - this thread would get a lookup failure for the element that it
> >> - just added, which certainly sounds like a bug to me!
> >> + No, it won't.
> >> + Resizing into the new hash table leaves the old hash table
> >> + intact, courtesy of the pointer pairs.
> >> } \QuickQuizEnd
> >>
> >> \begin{lineref}[ln:datastruct:hash_resize:access:add]
> >>
Hi Paul and Akira,
Thanks a lot for the comments, which I need some more time to look
into. For Paul's patch, I have a few concerns. Please take a look.
My understanding is that with this path, during the time period when
the resizing thread is running, an updater may insert/delete an item
into/from the new hash table, while readers are still looking up data
in the old one, resulting the readers are unaware of
insertions/deletions happening simultaneously. For example, it seems
the following sequence could happen.
1. The resizing thread starts.
2. The resizing thread successfully passes bucket *B* of the old hash table.
3. An updater wants to insert a new item *I* which should be inserted
into bucket *B*.
4. The updater will select the new hash table and insert the item *I*
into the new hash table.
5. A read request comes in and wants to lookup item *I*. The lookup
request will check the old hash table and fail. Doesn't it?
6. The resizing thread exits.
7. Now subsequent read requests can successfully find item *I*.
Is my understanding correct? Please let me know if I misunderstood
anything. Give the truth that this patch can accelerate the fast path,
I think it should be OK because resizing is typically happen rarely.
Just want to make sure I fully understand the algorithm.
Thanks,
--Junchang
