[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Change alarm cancel function to thread-safe:

[Neil Horman]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 04:12:04PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:39 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Cc: Wodkowski, PawelX; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Change alarm cancel function to thread-safe:
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 06:07:14PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > As I remember the purpose of the patch was to fix the race condition inside rte_alarm library.
> > > > > I believe that the patch provided by Michal & Pawel fixes the issues you discovered.
> > > > > If you think, that is not the case, could you please provide a list of remaining issues?
> > > > > Excluding ones that you just don't like it, and you are not happy with rte_alarm API in total?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Gladly.  As Pawel explained the race, its possible that, after calling
> > > > rte_eal_alarm_cancel, an in-flight execution of an alarm callback may still be
> > > > running.  The problem with that ostensibly is that data which is being accessed
> > > > by the callback might be then accessed in parallel with another process leading
> > > > to data corruption or some other problem. The issue I have with his patch is
> > > > that it doesn't completely close the race.  While it does close the race for the
> > > > condition in whcih thread B is running the alarm callback while thread A is
> > > > executing the cancel operation, it does not close the case for when a single
> > > > thread B is running the cancel operation, as the in-flight execution itself is
> > > > still active.
> > >
> > > A bit puzzled here:
> > > Are you saying that calling alarm_cancel() for itself inside eal_alarm_callback() might cause a problem?
> > > I still don't see how.
> > >
> > Potentially yes, by the same race condition that exists when using a secondary
> > thread to do the cancel call.  As I understand it the race that Pawel described
> > is as follows:
> > 
> > Thread A					Thread B
> > alarm_cancel()					eal_alarm_callback
> >     block on alarm spinlock			drop spinlock
> >         run cancel operation			execute callback function
> >     return from cancel
> >     rte_eal_alarm_set
> > 
> > As Pawel described the problem, there is a desire to not set the new alarm while
> > the old alarm is still executing.  And his patch accomplishes that for the two
> > thread case above just fine
> > 
> > The problem with Pawels patch is that its non functional in the case where the
> > cancel happens within Thread B.  Lets change the scenario just a little bit:
> > 
> > Thread B					Thread C
> > eal_alarm_callback
> >      callback_function
> >           some_other_common_func
> >                rte_eal_alarm_cancel(this)
> >           pthread_signal(Thread C)		wake up
> >           operate on alarm data			rte_eal_alarm_set
> >
> 
> As I can see, there is an incorrect behaviour in your callback_function example.
> It should first finish with " eal_alarm_callback" and only then send a signal to other thread.
> Otherwise we can't help it in any way.
> But I think, I understand your concern:
> after rte_eal_aralm_cancel() finishes, the caller can't clearly distinguish what exactly happen:
> 1) alarm was cancelled succesfully.
> 2) alarm was not found (already cancelled or executed).
> 3) alarm is executing by the same thread and can't be cancelled.
> 
> Basically right now the caller can distinguish that either #1 or #2,3 happened, but can't distinguish between 2 & 3.
> Correct?
> 
Yes, this is my concern exactly.

>  If that's so, then I suppose we can do: make alarm_cancel() to return a negative value for the case #3 (-EINPROGRESS or something).
>  Something like: 
> ...
> if (ap->executing == 0) {
>    LIST_REMOVE(ap,next);
>     rte_free(ap);
>     count++;
>     ap = ap_prev; 
> } else if (pthread_equal(ap->executing_id, pthread_self()) == 0) {
>     executing++;
> } else { 
>    ret = -EINPROGRESS;
> }
> ...
> return ((ret != 0) ? ret : count);
> 
> So the return value  will be > 0 for #1, 0 for #2, <0 for #3.
> As I remember, you already suggested something similar in one of the previous mails.
Yes, I rolled the API changes I suggested in with this model, because I wanted
to be able to do precise specification of a timer instance to cancel, but if
we're not ready to make that change, I think what you propose above would be
suffficient.  Theres some question as to weather we would cancel timers that are
still pending on a return of -EINPROGRESS, but I think if we document it
accordingly, then it can be worked out just fine.

Best
Neil

> Konstantin
> 
> 
> 
>  	
> > 
> > In this scenario the problem is not fixed because when called from within the
> > alarm thread, the executing alarm is skipped (as it must be), but that fact is
> > invisible to the caller, and because of that its still possible for the same
> > origional problem to occur.
> > 
> > Neil
> > 
>