[09/12] ring: introduce lockless ring buffer

Commit Message

Xiao Guangrong June 4, 2018, 9:55 a.m. UTC

From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>

It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
single consumer.

Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.

If has single producer vs. single consumer, it is the traditional fifo,
If has multiple producers, it uses the algorithm as followings:

For the producer, it uses two steps to update the ring:
   - first step, occupy the entry in the ring:

retry:
      in = ring->in
      if (cmpxhg(&ring->in, in, in +1) != in)
            goto retry;

     after that the entry pointed by ring->data[in] has been owned by
     the producer.

     assert(ring->data[in] == NULL);

     Note, no other producer can touch this entry so that this entry
     should always be the initialized state.

   - second step, write the data to the entry:

     ring->data[in] = data;

For the consumer, it first checks if there is available entry in the
ring and fetches the entry from the ring:

     if (!ring_is_empty(ring))
          entry = &ring[ring->out];

     Note: the ring->out has not been updated so that the entry pointed
     by ring->out is completely owned by the consumer.

Then it checks if the data is ready:

retry:
     if (*entry == NULL)
            goto retry;
That means, the producer has updated the index but haven't written any
data to it.

Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:

      data = *entry;
      *entry = NULL;
      ring->out++;

Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.

(1) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
(2) http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html

Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
---
 migration/ring.h | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 265 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 migration/ring.h

Comments

Peter Xu June 20, 2018, 4:52 a.m. UTC | #1

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:
> From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
> 
> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
> single consumer.
> 
> Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
> rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
> memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
> rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.

Could you provide some more information about the kfifo bug?  Any
pointer would be appreciated.

> 
> If has single producer vs. single consumer, it is the traditional fifo,
> If has multiple producers, it uses the algorithm as followings:
> 
> For the producer, it uses two steps to update the ring:
>    - first step, occupy the entry in the ring:
> 
> retry:
>       in = ring->in
>       if (cmpxhg(&ring->in, in, in +1) != in)
>             goto retry;
> 
>      after that the entry pointed by ring->data[in] has been owned by
>      the producer.
> 
>      assert(ring->data[in] == NULL);
> 
>      Note, no other producer can touch this entry so that this entry
>      should always be the initialized state.
> 
>    - second step, write the data to the entry:
> 
>      ring->data[in] = data;
> 
> For the consumer, it first checks if there is available entry in the
> ring and fetches the entry from the ring:
> 
>      if (!ring_is_empty(ring))
>           entry = &ring[ring->out];
> 
>      Note: the ring->out has not been updated so that the entry pointed
>      by ring->out is completely owned by the consumer.
> 
> Then it checks if the data is ready:
> 
> retry:
>      if (*entry == NULL)
>             goto retry;
> That means, the producer has updated the index but haven't written any
> data to it.
> 
> Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
> state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
> 
>       data = *entry;
>       *entry = NULL;
>       ring->out++;
> 
> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
> 
> (1) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
> (2) http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
> ---
>  migration/ring.h | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If this is a very general implementation, not sure whether we can move
this to util/ directory so that it can be used even outside migration
codes.

>  1 file changed, 265 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 migration/ring.h
> 
> diff --git a/migration/ring.h b/migration/ring.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..da9b8bdcbb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/migration/ring.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
> +/*
> + * Ring Buffer
> + *
> + * Multiple producers and single consumer are supported with lock free.
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2018 Tencent Inc
> + *
> + * Authors:
> + *  Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
> + *
> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later.
> + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _RING__
> +#define _RING__
> +
> +#define CACHE_LINE  64

Is this for x86_64?  Is the cache line size the same for all arch?

> +#define cache_aligned __attribute__((__aligned__(CACHE_LINE)))
> +
> +#define RING_MULTI_PRODUCER 0x1
> +
> +struct Ring {
> +    unsigned int flags;
> +    unsigned int size;
> +    unsigned int mask;
> +
> +    unsigned int in cache_aligned;
> +
> +    unsigned int out cache_aligned;
> +
> +    void *data[0] cache_aligned;
> +};
> +typedef struct Ring Ring;
> +
> +/*
> + * allocate and initialize the ring
> + *
> + * @size: the number of element, it should be power of 2
> + * @flags: set to RING_MULTI_PRODUCER if the ring has multiple producer,
> + *         otherwise set it to 0, i,e. single producer and single consumer.
> + *
> + * return the ring.
> + */
> +static inline Ring *ring_alloc(unsigned int size, unsigned int flags)
> +{
> +    Ring *ring;
> +
> +    assert(is_power_of_2(size));
> +
> +    ring = g_malloc0(sizeof(*ring) + size * sizeof(void *));
> +    ring->size = size;
> +    ring->mask = ring->size - 1;
> +    ring->flags = flags;
> +    return ring;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void ring_free(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    g_free(ring);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool __ring_is_empty(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
> +{
> +    return in == out;
> +}

(some of the helpers are a bit confusing to me like this one; I would
 prefer some of the helpers be directly squashed into code, but it's a
 personal preference only)

> +
> +static inline bool ring_is_empty(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    return ring->in == ring->out;
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int ring_len(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
> +{
> +    return in - out;
> +}

(this too)

> +
> +static inline bool
> +__ring_is_full(Ring *ring, unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
> +{
> +    return ring_len(in, out) > ring->mask;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool ring_is_full(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    return __ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, ring->out);
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int ring_index(Ring *ring, unsigned int pos)
> +{
> +    return pos & ring->mask;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int __ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, out;
> +
> +    out = atomic_load_acquire(&ring->out);
> +    /*
> +     * smp_mb()
> +     *
> +     * should read ring->out before updating the entry, see the comments in
> +     * __ring_get().

Nit: here I think it means the comment in [1] below.  Maybe:

  "see the comments in __ring_get() when calling
   atomic_store_release()"

?

> +     */
> +
> +    if (__ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, out)) {
> +        return -ENOBUFS;
> +    }
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, ring->in);
> +
> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], data);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * should make sure the entry is updated before increasing ring->in
> +     * otherwise the consumer will get a entry but its content is useless.
> +     */
> +    smp_wmb();
> +    atomic_set(&ring->in, ring->in + 1);

Pure question: could we use store_release() instead of a mixture of
store/release and raw memory barriers in the function?  Or is there
any performance consideration behind?

It'll be nice to mention the performance considerations if there is.

> +    return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *__ring_get(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, in;
> +    void *data;
> +
> +    in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * should read ring->in first to make sure the entry pointed by this
> +     * index is available, see the comments in __ring_put().
> +     */

Nit: similar to above, maybe mention about which comment would be a
bit nicer.

> +    smp_rmb();
> +    if (__ring_is_empty(in, ring->out)) {
> +        return NULL;
> +    }
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, ring->out);
> +
> +    data = atomic_read(&ring->data[index]);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * smp_mb()
> +     *
> +     * once the ring->out is updated the entry originally indicated by the
> +     * the index is visible and usable to the producer so that we should
> +     * make sure reading the entry out before updating ring->out to avoid
> +     * the entry being overwritten by the producer.
> +     */
> +    atomic_store_release(&ring->out, ring->out + 1);

[1]

> +
> +    return data;
> +}

Regards,

Peter Xu June 20, 2018, 5:55 a.m. UTC | #2

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:

[...]

(Some more comments/questions for the MP implementation...)

> +static inline int ring_mp_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, in, in_next, out;
> +
> +    do {
> +        in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
> +        out = atomic_read(&ring->out);

[0]

Do we need to fetch "out" with load_acquire()?  Otherwise what's the
pairing of below store_release() at [1]?

This barrier exists in SP-SC case which makes sense to me, I assume
that's also needed for MP-SC case, am I right?

> +
> +        if (__ring_is_full(ring, in, out)) {
> +            if (atomic_read(&ring->in) == in &&
> +                atomic_read(&ring->out) == out) {

Why read again?  After all the ring API seems to be designed as
non-blocking.  E.g., I see the poll at [2] below makes more sense
since when reaches [2] it means that there must be a producer that is
_doing_ the queuing, so polling is very possible to complete fast.
However here it seems to be a pure busy poll without any hint.  Then
not sure whether we should just let the caller decide whether it wants
to call ring_put() again.

> +                return -ENOBUFS;
> +            }
> +
> +            /* a entry has been fetched out, retry. */
> +            continue;
> +        }
> +
> +        in_next = in + 1;
> +    } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&ring->in, in, in_next) != in);
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, in);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * smp_rmb() paired with the memory barrier of (A) in ring_mp_get()
> +     * is implied in atomic_cmpxchg() as we should read ring->out first
> +     * before fetching the entry, otherwise this assert will fail.

Thanks for all these comments!  These are really helpful for
reviewers.

However I'm not sure whether I understand it correctly here on MB of
(A) for ring_mp_get() - AFAIU that should corresponds to a smp_rmb()
at [0] above when reading the "out" variable rather than this
assertion, and that's why I thought at [0] we should have something
like a load_acquire() there (which contains a rmb()).

From content-wise, I think the code here is correct, since
atomic_cmpxchg() should have one implicit smp_mb() after all so we
don't need anything further barriers here.

> +     */
> +    assert(!atomic_read(&ring->data[index]));
> +
> +    /*
> +     * smp_mb() paired with the memory barrier of (B) in ring_mp_get() is
> +     * implied in atomic_cmpxchg(), that is needed here as  we should read
> +     * ring->out before updating the entry, it is the same as we did in
> +     * __ring_put().
> +     *
> +     * smp_wmb() paired with the memory barrier of (C) in ring_mp_get()
> +     * is implied in atomic_cmpxchg(), that is needed as we should increase
> +     * ring->in before updating the entry.
> +     */
> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], data);
> +
> +    return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *ring_mp_get(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, in;
> +    void *data;
> +
> +    do {
> +        in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
> +
> +        /*
> +         * (C) should read ring->in first to make sure the entry pointed by this
> +         * index is available
> +         */
> +        smp_rmb();
> +
> +        if (!__ring_is_empty(in, ring->out)) {
> +            break;
> +        }
> +
> +        if (atomic_read(&ring->in) == in) {
> +            return NULL;
> +        }
> +        /* new entry has been added in, retry. */
> +    } while (1);
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, ring->out);
> +
> +    do {
> +        data = atomic_read(&ring->data[index]);
> +        if (data) {
> +            break;
> +        }
> +        /* the producer is updating the entry, retry */
> +        cpu_relax();

[2]

> +    } while (1);
> +
> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], NULL);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * (B) smp_mb() is needed as we should read the entry out before
> +     * updating ring->out as we did in __ring_get().
> +     *
> +     * (A) smp_wmb() is needed as we should make the entry be NULL before
> +     * updating ring->out (which will make the entry be visible and usable).
> +     */
> +    atomic_store_release(&ring->out, ring->out + 1);

[1]

> +
> +    return data;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
> +{
> +    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
> +        return ring_mp_put(ring, data);
> +    }
> +    return __ring_put(ring, data);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *ring_get(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
> +        return ring_mp_get(ring);
> +    }
> +    return __ring_get(ring);
> +}
> +#endif
> -- 
> 2.14.4
> 

Thanks,

Michael S. Tsirkin June 20, 2018, 12:38 p.m. UTC | #3

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:
> From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
> 
> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
> single consumer.
> 
> Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
> rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
> memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
> rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.
> 
> If has single producer vs. single consumer, it is the traditional fifo,
> If has multiple producers, it uses the algorithm as followings:
> 
> For the producer, it uses two steps to update the ring:
>    - first step, occupy the entry in the ring:
> 
> retry:
>       in = ring->in
>       if (cmpxhg(&ring->in, in, in +1) != in)
>             goto retry;
> 
>      after that the entry pointed by ring->data[in] has been owned by
>      the producer.
> 
>      assert(ring->data[in] == NULL);
> 
>      Note, no other producer can touch this entry so that this entry
>      should always be the initialized state.
> 
>    - second step, write the data to the entry:
> 
>      ring->data[in] = data;
> 
> For the consumer, it first checks if there is available entry in the
> ring and fetches the entry from the ring:
> 
>      if (!ring_is_empty(ring))
>           entry = &ring[ring->out];
> 
>      Note: the ring->out has not been updated so that the entry pointed
>      by ring->out is completely owned by the consumer.
> 
> Then it checks if the data is ready:
> 
> retry:
>      if (*entry == NULL)
>             goto retry;
> That means, the producer has updated the index but haven't written any
> data to it.
> 
> Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
> state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
> 
>       data = *entry;
>       *entry = NULL;
>       ring->out++;
> 
> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
>
>
>
> (1) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
> (2) http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>

So instead of all this super-optimized trickiness, how about
a simple port of ptr_ring from linux?

That one isn't lockless but it's known to outperform
most others for a single producer/single consumer case.
And with a ton of networking going on,
who said it's such a hot spot? OTOH this implementation
has more barriers which slows down each individual thread.
It's also a source of bugs.

Further, atomic tricks this one uses are not fair so some threads can get
completely starved while others make progress. There's also no
chance to mix aggressive polling and sleeping with this
kind of scheme, so the starved thread will consume lots of
CPU.

So I'd like to see a simple ring used, and then a patch on top
switching to this tricky one with performance comparison
along with that.

> ---
>  migration/ring.h | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 265 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 migration/ring.h
> 
> diff --git a/migration/ring.h b/migration/ring.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..da9b8bdcbb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/migration/ring.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
> +/*
> + * Ring Buffer
> + *
> + * Multiple producers and single consumer are supported with lock free.
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2018 Tencent Inc
> + *
> + * Authors:
> + *  Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
> + *
> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later.
> + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _RING__
> +#define _RING__

Prefix Ring is too short.


> +
> +#define CACHE_LINE  64
> +#define cache_aligned __attribute__((__aligned__(CACHE_LINE)))
> +
> +#define RING_MULTI_PRODUCER 0x1
> +
> +struct Ring {
> +    unsigned int flags;
> +    unsigned int size;
> +    unsigned int mask;
> +
> +    unsigned int in cache_aligned;
> +
> +    unsigned int out cache_aligned;
> +
> +    void *data[0] cache_aligned;
> +};
> +typedef struct Ring Ring;
> +
> +/*
> + * allocate and initialize the ring
> + *
> + * @size: the number of element, it should be power of 2
> + * @flags: set to RING_MULTI_PRODUCER if the ring has multiple producer,
> + *         otherwise set it to 0, i,e. single producer and single consumer.
> + *
> + * return the ring.
> + */
> +static inline Ring *ring_alloc(unsigned int size, unsigned int flags)
> +{
> +    Ring *ring;
> +
> +    assert(is_power_of_2(size));
> +
> +    ring = g_malloc0(sizeof(*ring) + size * sizeof(void *));
> +    ring->size = size;
> +    ring->mask = ring->size - 1;
> +    ring->flags = flags;
> +    return ring;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void ring_free(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    g_free(ring);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool __ring_is_empty(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
> +{
> +    return in == out;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool ring_is_empty(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    return ring->in == ring->out;
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int ring_len(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
> +{
> +    return in - out;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool
> +__ring_is_full(Ring *ring, unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
> +{
> +    return ring_len(in, out) > ring->mask;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool ring_is_full(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    return __ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, ring->out);
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int ring_index(Ring *ring, unsigned int pos)
> +{
> +    return pos & ring->mask;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int __ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, out;
> +
> +    out = atomic_load_acquire(&ring->out);
> +    /*
> +     * smp_mb()
> +     *
> +     * should read ring->out before updating the entry, see the comments in
> +     * __ring_get().
> +     */
> +
> +    if (__ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, out)) {
> +        return -ENOBUFS;
> +    }
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, ring->in);
> +
> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], data);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * should make sure the entry is updated before increasing ring->in
> +     * otherwise the consumer will get a entry but its content is useless.
> +     */
> +    smp_wmb();
> +    atomic_set(&ring->in, ring->in + 1);
> +    return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *__ring_get(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, in;
> +    void *data;
> +
> +    in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * should read ring->in first to make sure the entry pointed by this
> +     * index is available, see the comments in __ring_put().
> +     */
> +    smp_rmb();
> +    if (__ring_is_empty(in, ring->out)) {
> +        return NULL;
> +    }
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, ring->out);
> +
> +    data = atomic_read(&ring->data[index]);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * smp_mb()
> +     *
> +     * once the ring->out is updated the entry originally indicated by the
> +     * the index is visible and usable to the producer so that we should
> +     * make sure reading the entry out before updating ring->out to avoid
> +     * the entry being overwritten by the producer.
> +     */
> +    atomic_store_release(&ring->out, ring->out + 1);
> +
> +    return data;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ring_mp_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, in, in_next, out;
> +
> +    do {
> +        in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
> +        out = atomic_read(&ring->out);
> +
> +        if (__ring_is_full(ring, in, out)) {
> +            if (atomic_read(&ring->in) == in &&
> +                atomic_read(&ring->out) == out) {
> +                return -ENOBUFS;
> +            }
> +
> +            /* a entry has been fetched out, retry. */
> +            continue;
> +        }
> +
> +        in_next = in + 1;
> +    } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&ring->in, in, in_next) != in);
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, in);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * smp_rmb() paired with the memory barrier of (A) in ring_mp_get()
> +     * is implied in atomic_cmpxchg() as we should read ring->out first
> +     * before fetching the entry, otherwise this assert will fail.
> +     */
> +    assert(!atomic_read(&ring->data[index]));
> +
> +    /*
> +     * smp_mb() paired with the memory barrier of (B) in ring_mp_get() is
> +     * implied in atomic_cmpxchg(), that is needed here as  we should read
> +     * ring->out before updating the entry, it is the same as we did in
> +     * __ring_put().
> +     *
> +     * smp_wmb() paired with the memory barrier of (C) in ring_mp_get()
> +     * is implied in atomic_cmpxchg(), that is needed as we should increase
> +     * ring->in before updating the entry.
> +     */
> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], data);
> +
> +    return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *ring_mp_get(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    unsigned int index, in;
> +    void *data;
> +
> +    do {
> +        in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
> +
> +        /*
> +         * (C) should read ring->in first to make sure the entry pointed by this
> +         * index is available
> +         */
> +        smp_rmb();
> +
> +        if (!__ring_is_empty(in, ring->out)) {
> +            break;
> +        }
> +
> +        if (atomic_read(&ring->in) == in) {
> +            return NULL;
> +        }
> +        /* new entry has been added in, retry. */
> +    } while (1);
> +
> +    index = ring_index(ring, ring->out);
> +
> +    do {
> +        data = atomic_read(&ring->data[index]);
> +        if (data) {
> +            break;
> +        }
> +        /* the producer is updating the entry, retry */
> +        cpu_relax();
> +    } while (1);
> +
> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], NULL);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * (B) smp_mb() is needed as we should read the entry out before
> +     * updating ring->out as we did in __ring_get().
> +     *
> +     * (A) smp_wmb() is needed as we should make the entry be NULL before
> +     * updating ring->out (which will make the entry be visible and usable).
> +     */

I can't say I understand this all.
And the interaction of acquire/release semantics with smp_*
barriers is even scarier.

> +    atomic_store_release(&ring->out, ring->out + 1);
> +
> +    return data;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
> +{
> +    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
> +        return ring_mp_put(ring, data);
> +    }
> +    return __ring_put(ring, data);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *ring_get(Ring *ring)
> +{
> +    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
> +        return ring_mp_get(ring);
> +    }
> +    return __ring_get(ring);
> +}
> +#endif


A bunch of tricky barriers retries etc all over the place.  This sorely
needs *a lot of* unit tests. Where are they?



> -- 
> 2.14.4

Xiao Guangrong June 28, 2018, 10:02 a.m. UTC | #4

CC: Paul, Peter Zijlstra, Stefani, Lai who are all good at memory barrier.


On 06/20/2018 12:52 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:
>> From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
>>
>> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
>> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
>> single consumer.
>>
>> Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
>> rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
>> memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
>> rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.
> 
> Could you provide some more information about the kfifo bug?  Any
> pointer would be appreciated.
> 

Sure, i reported one of the memory barrier issue to linux kernel:
    https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/11/58

Actually, beside that, there is another memory barrier issue in kfifo,
please consider this case:

    at the beginning
    ring->size = 4
    ring->out = 0
    ring->in = 4

      Consumer                            Producer
  ---------------                     --------------
    index = ring->out; /* index == 0 */
    ring->out++; /* ring->out == 1 */
    < Re-Order >
                                     out = ring->out;
                                     if (ring->in - out >= ring->mask)
                                         return -EFULL;
                                     /* see the ring is not full */
                                     index = ring->in & ring->mask; /* index == 0 */
                                     ring->data[index] = new_data;
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ring->in++;

    data = ring->data[index];
    !!!!!! the old data is lost !!!!!!

So we need to make sure:
1) for the consumer, we should read the ring->data[] out before updating ring->out
2) for the producer, we should read ring->out before updating ring->data[]

as followings:
       Producer                                       Consumer
   ------------------------------------         ------------------------
       Reading ring->out                            Reading ring->data[index]
       smp_mb()                                     smp_mb()
       Setting ring->data[index] = data             ring->out++

[ i used atomic_store_release() and atomic_load_acquire() instead of smp_mb() in the
   patch. ]

But i am not sure if we can use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() in the producer?

>>
>> If has single producer vs. single consumer, it is the traditional fifo,
>> If has multiple producers, it uses the algorithm as followings:
>>
>> For the producer, it uses two steps to update the ring:
>>     - first step, occupy the entry in the ring:
>>
>> retry:
>>        in = ring->in
>>        if (cmpxhg(&ring->in, in, in +1) != in)
>>              goto retry;
>>
>>       after that the entry pointed by ring->data[in] has been owned by
>>       the producer.
>>
>>       assert(ring->data[in] == NULL);
>>
>>       Note, no other producer can touch this entry so that this entry
>>       should always be the initialized state.
>>
>>     - second step, write the data to the entry:
>>
>>       ring->data[in] = data;
>>
>> For the consumer, it first checks if there is available entry in the
>> ring and fetches the entry from the ring:
>>
>>       if (!ring_is_empty(ring))
>>            entry = &ring[ring->out];
>>
>>       Note: the ring->out has not been updated so that the entry pointed
>>       by ring->out is completely owned by the consumer.
>>
>> Then it checks if the data is ready:
>>
>> retry:
>>       if (*entry == NULL)
>>              goto retry;
>> That means, the producer has updated the index but haven't written any
>> data to it.
>>
>> Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
>> state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
>>
>>        data = *entry;
>>        *entry = NULL;
>>        ring->out++;
>>
>> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
>>
>> (1) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
>> (2) http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
>> ---
>>   migration/ring.h | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> If this is a very general implementation, not sure whether we can move
> this to util/ directory so that it can be used even outside migration
> codes.

I thought it too. Currently migration is the only user for it, so i put
it near the code of migration. It's good to me to move it to util/ if you
prefer.

> 
>>   1 file changed, 265 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 migration/ring.h
>>
>> diff --git a/migration/ring.h b/migration/ring.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..da9b8bdcbb
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/migration/ring.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Ring Buffer
>> + *
>> + * Multiple producers and single consumer are supported with lock free.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (c) 2018 Tencent Inc
>> + *
>> + * Authors:
>> + *  Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
>> + *
>> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later.
>> + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _RING__
>> +#define _RING__
>> +
>> +#define CACHE_LINE  64
> 
> Is this for x86_64?  Is the cache line size the same for all arch?

64 bytes is just a common size. :)

Does QEMU support pre-configured CACHE_SIZE?

> 
>> +#define cache_aligned __attribute__((__aligned__(CACHE_LINE)))
>> +
>> +#define RING_MULTI_PRODUCER 0x1
>> +
>> +struct Ring {
>> +    unsigned int flags;
>> +    unsigned int size;
>> +    unsigned int mask;
>> +
>> +    unsigned int in cache_aligned;
>> +
>> +    unsigned int out cache_aligned;
>> +
>> +    void *data[0] cache_aligned;
>> +};
>> +typedef struct Ring Ring;
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * allocate and initialize the ring
>> + *
>> + * @size: the number of element, it should be power of 2
>> + * @flags: set to RING_MULTI_PRODUCER if the ring has multiple producer,
>> + *         otherwise set it to 0, i,e. single producer and single consumer.
>> + *
>> + * return the ring.
>> + */
>> +static inline Ring *ring_alloc(unsigned int size, unsigned int flags)
>> +{
>> +    Ring *ring;
>> +
>> +    assert(is_power_of_2(size));
>> +
>> +    ring = g_malloc0(sizeof(*ring) + size * sizeof(void *));
>> +    ring->size = size;
>> +    ring->mask = ring->size - 1;
>> +    ring->flags = flags;
>> +    return ring;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void ring_free(Ring *ring)
>> +{
>> +    g_free(ring);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline bool __ring_is_empty(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
>> +{
>> +    return in == out;
>> +}
> 
> (some of the helpers are a bit confusing to me like this one; I would
>   prefer some of the helpers be directly squashed into code, but it's a
>   personal preference only)
> 

I will carefully consider it in the next version...

>> +
>> +static inline bool ring_is_empty(Ring *ring)
>> +{
>> +    return ring->in == ring->out;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline unsigned int ring_len(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
>> +{
>> +    return in - out;
>> +}
> 
> (this too)
> 
>> +
>> +static inline bool
>> +__ring_is_full(Ring *ring, unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
>> +{
>> +    return ring_len(in, out) > ring->mask;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline bool ring_is_full(Ring *ring)
>> +{
>> +    return __ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, ring->out);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline unsigned int ring_index(Ring *ring, unsigned int pos)
>> +{
>> +    return pos & ring->mask;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int __ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned int index, out;
>> +
>> +    out = atomic_load_acquire(&ring->out);
>> +    /*
>> +     * smp_mb()
>> +     *
>> +     * should read ring->out before updating the entry, see the comments in
>> +     * __ring_get().
> 
> Nit: here I think it means the comment in [1] below.  Maybe:
> 
>    "see the comments in __ring_get() when calling
>     atomic_store_release()"
> 
> ?

Yes, you are right, i will address your suggestion.

> 
>> +     */
>> +
>> +    if (__ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, out)) {
>> +        return -ENOBUFS;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    index = ring_index(ring, ring->in);
>> +
>> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], data);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * should make sure the entry is updated before increasing ring->in
>> +     * otherwise the consumer will get a entry but its content is useless.
>> +     */
>> +    smp_wmb();
>> +    atomic_set(&ring->in, ring->in + 1);
> 
> Pure question: could we use store_release() instead of a mixture of
> store/release and raw memory barriers in the function?  Or is there
> any performance consideration behind?
> 
> It'll be nice to mention the performance considerations if there is.

I think atomic_mb_read() and atomic_mb_set() is what you are
talking about. These operations speed up read accesses but
slow done write accesses that is not suitable for our case.

> 
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void *__ring_get(Ring *ring)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned int index, in;
>> +    void *data;
>> +
>> +    in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * should read ring->in first to make sure the entry pointed by this
>> +     * index is available, see the comments in __ring_put().
>> +     */
> 
> Nit: similar to above, maybe mention about which comment would be a
> bit nicer.

Yes, will improve it.

Wang, Wei W June 28, 2018, 11:55 a.m. UTC | #5

On 06/28/2018 06:02 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
> CC: Paul, Peter Zijlstra, Stefani, Lai who are all good at memory 
> barrier.
>
>
> On 06/20/2018 12:52 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] 
>> wrote:
>>> From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
>>> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
>>> single consumer.
>>>
>>> Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
>>> rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
>>> memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
>>> rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.
>>
>> Could you provide some more information about the kfifo bug? Any
>> pointer would be appreciated.
>>
>
> Sure, i reported one of the memory barrier issue to linux kernel:
>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/11/58
>
> Actually, beside that, there is another memory barrier issue in kfifo,
> please consider this case:
>
>    at the beginning
>    ring->size = 4
>    ring->out = 0
>    ring->in = 4
>
>      Consumer                            Producer
>  ---------------                     --------------
>    index = ring->out; /* index == 0 */
>    ring->out++; /* ring->out == 1 */
>    < Re-Order >
>                                     out = ring->out;
>                                     if (ring->in - out >= ring->mask)
>                                         return -EFULL;
>                                     /* see the ring is not full */
>                                     index = ring->in & ring->mask; /* 
> index == 0 */
>                                     ring->data[index] = new_data;
> 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ring->in++;
>
>    data = ring->data[index];
>    !!!!!! the old data is lost !!!!!!
>
> So we need to make sure:
> 1) for the consumer, we should read the ring->data[] out before 
> updating ring->out
> 2) for the producer, we should read ring->out before updating 
> ring->data[]
>
> as followings:
>       Producer                                       Consumer
>   ------------------------------------ ------------------------
>       Reading ring->out                            Reading 
> ring->data[index]
>       smp_mb()                                     smp_mb()
>       Setting ring->data[index] = data ring->out++
>
> [ i used atomic_store_release() and atomic_load_acquire() instead of 
> smp_mb() in the
>   patch. ]
>
> But i am not sure if we can use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() in the 
> producer?


I wonder if this could be solved by simply tweaking the above consumer 
implementation:

[1] index = ring->out;
[2] data = ring->data[index];
[3] index++;
[4] ring->out = index;

Now [2] and [3] forms a WAR dependency, which avoids the reordering.


Best,
Wei

Jason Wang June 28, 2018, 1:36 p.m. UTC | #6

On 2018年06月04日 17:55, [e-mail] wrote:
> From: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>
> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
> single consumer.
>
> Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
> rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
> memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
> rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.
>
> If has single producer vs. single consumer, it is the traditional fifo,
> If has multiple producers, it uses the algorithm as followings:
>
> For the producer, it uses two steps to update the ring:
>     - first step, occupy the entry in the ring:
>
> retry:
>        in = ring->in
>        if (cmpxhg(&ring->in, in, in +1) != in)
>              goto retry;
>
>       after that the entry pointed by ring->data[in] has been owned by
>       the producer.
>
>       assert(ring->data[in] == NULL);
>
>       Note, no other producer can touch this entry so that this entry
>       should always be the initialized state.
>
>     - second step, write the data to the entry:
>
>       ring->data[in] = data;
>
> For the consumer, it first checks if there is available entry in the
> ring and fetches the entry from the ring:
>
>       if (!ring_is_empty(ring))
>            entry = &ring[ring->out];
>
>       Note: the ring->out has not been updated so that the entry pointed
>       by ring->out is completely owned by the consumer.
>
> Then it checks if the data is ready:
>
> retry:
>       if (*entry == NULL)
>              goto retry;
> That means, the producer has updated the index but haven't written any
> data to it.
>
> Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
> state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
>
>        data = *entry;
>        *entry = NULL;
>        ring->out++;
>
> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
>
> (1)https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
> (2)http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
> ---

May I ask why you need a MPSC ring here? Can we just use N SPSC ring for 
submitting pages and another N SPSC ring for passing back results?

Thanks

Xiao Guangrong June 28, 2018, 2 p.m. UTC | #7

On 06/20/2018 01:55 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> (Some more comments/questions for the MP implementation...)
> 
>> +static inline int ring_mp_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned int index, in, in_next, out;
>> +
>> +    do {
>> +        in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
>> +        out = atomic_read(&ring->out);
> 
> [0]
> 
> Do we need to fetch "out" with load_acquire()?  Otherwise what's the
> pairing of below store_release() at [1]?
> 

The barrier paired with [1] is the full barrier implied in atomic_cmpxchg(),

> This barrier exists in SP-SC case which makes sense to me, I assume
> that's also needed for MP-SC case, am I right?

We needn't put a memory here as we do not need to care the order between
these two indexes (in and out), instead, the memory barrier (and for
SP-SC as well) is used to make the order between ring->out and updating
ring->data[] as we explained in previous mail.

> 
>> +
>> +        if (__ring_is_full(ring, in, out)) {
>> +            if (atomic_read(&ring->in) == in &&
>> +                atomic_read(&ring->out) == out) {
> 
> Why read again?  After all the ring API seems to be designed as
> non-blocking.  E.g., I see the poll at [2] below makes more sense
> since when reaches [2] it means that there must be a producer that is
> _doing_ the queuing, so polling is very possible to complete fast.
> However here it seems to be a pure busy poll without any hint.  Then
> not sure whether we should just let the caller decide whether it wants
> to call ring_put() again.
> 

Without it we can easily observe a "strange" behavior that the thread will
put the result to the global ring failed even if we allocated enough room
for the global ring (its capability >= total requests), that's because
these two indexes can be updated at anytime, consider the case that multiple
get and put operations can be finished between reading ring->in and ring->out
so that very possibly ring->in can pass the value readed from ring->out.

Having this code, the negative case only happens if these two indexes (32 bits)
overflows to the same value, that can help us to catch potential bug in the
code.

>> +                return -ENOBUFS;
>> +            }
>> +
>> +            /* a entry has been fetched out, retry. */
>> +            continue;
>> +        }
>> +
>> +        in_next = in + 1;
>> +    } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&ring->in, in, in_next) != in);
>> +
>> +    index = ring_index(ring, in);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * smp_rmb() paired with the memory barrier of (A) in ring_mp_get()
>> +     * is implied in atomic_cmpxchg() as we should read ring->out first
>> +     * before fetching the entry, otherwise this assert will fail.
> 
> Thanks for all these comments!  These are really helpful for
> reviewers.
> 
> However I'm not sure whether I understand it correctly here on MB of
> (A) for ring_mp_get() - AFAIU that should corresponds to a smp_rmb()
> at [0] above when reading the "out" variable rather than this
> assertion, and that's why I thought at [0] we should have something
> like a load_acquire() there (which contains a rmb()).

Memory barrier (A) in ring_mp_get() makes sure the order between:
    ring->data[index] = NULL;
    smp_wmb();
    ring->out = out + 1;

And the memory barrier at [0] makes sure the order between:
    out = ring->out;
    /* smp_rmb() */
    compxchg();
    value = ring->data[index];
    assert(value);

[ note: the assertion and reading ring->out are across cmpxchg(). ]

Did i understand your question clearly?

> 
>  From content-wise, I think the code here is correct, since
> atomic_cmpxchg() should have one implicit smp_mb() after all so we
> don't need anything further barriers here.

Yes, it is.

Xiao Guangrong June 29, 2018, 3:55 a.m. UTC | #8

On 06/28/2018 07:55 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 06/28/2018 06:02 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>
>> CC: Paul, Peter Zijlstra, Stefani, Lai who are all good at memory barrier.
>>
>>
>> On 06/20/2018 12:52 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
>>>> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
>>>> single consumer.
>>>>
>>>> Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
>>>> rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
>>>> memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
>>>> rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.
>>>
>>> Could you provide some more information about the kfifo bug? Any
>>> pointer would be appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, i reported one of the memory barrier issue to linux kernel:
>>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/11/58
>>
>> Actually, beside that, there is another memory barrier issue in kfifo,
>> please consider this case:
>>
>>    at the beginning
>>    ring->size = 4
>>    ring->out = 0
>>    ring->in = 4
>>
>>      Consumer                            Producer
>>  ---------------                     --------------
>>    index = ring->out; /* index == 0 */
>>    ring->out++; /* ring->out == 1 */
>>    < Re-Order >
>>                                     out = ring->out;
>>                                     if (ring->in - out >= ring->mask)
>>                                         return -EFULL;
>>                                     /* see the ring is not full */
>>                                     index = ring->in & ring->mask; /* index == 0 */
>>                                     ring->data[index] = new_data;
>> 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ring->in++;
>>
>>    data = ring->data[index];
>>    !!!!!! the old data is lost !!!!!!
>>
>> So we need to make sure:
>> 1) for the consumer, we should read the ring->data[] out before updating ring->out
>> 2) for the producer, we should read ring->out before updating ring->data[]
>>
>> as followings:
>>       Producer                                       Consumer
>>   ------------------------------------ ------------------------
>>       Reading ring->out                            Reading ring->data[index]
>>       smp_mb()                                     smp_mb()
>>       Setting ring->data[index] = data ring->out++
>>
>> [ i used atomic_store_release() and atomic_load_acquire() instead of smp_mb() in the
>>   patch. ]
>>
>> But i am not sure if we can use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() in the producer?
> 
> 
> I wonder if this could be solved by simply tweaking the above consumer implementation:
> 
> [1] index = ring->out;
> [2] data = ring->data[index];
> [3] index++;
> [4] ring->out = index;
> 
> Now [2] and [3] forms a WAR dependency, which avoids the reordering.

It can not. [2] and [4] still do not any dependency, CPU and complainer can omit
the 'index'.

Xiao Guangrong June 29, 2018, 3:59 a.m. UTC | #9

On 06/28/2018 09:36 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018年06月04日 17:55, [e-mail] wrote:
>> From: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>>
>> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
>> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
>> single consumer.
>>

>> Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
>> state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
>>
>>        data = *entry;
>>        *entry = NULL;
>>        ring->out++;
>>
>> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
>>
>> (1)https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
>> (2)http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>> ---
> 
> May I ask why you need a MPSC ring here? Can we just use N SPSC ring for submitting pages and another N SPSC ring for passing back results?

Sure.

We had this option in our mind, however, it is not scalable which will slow
the main thread down, instead, we'd rather to speed up main thread and move
reasonable workload to the threads.

Michael S. Tsirkin June 29, 2018, 4:23 a.m. UTC | #10

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 09:36:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018年06月04日 17:55, [e-mail] wrote:
> > From: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
> > 
> > It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
> > single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
> > single consumer.
> > 
> > Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's
> > rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of
> > memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of
> > rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.
> > 
> > If has single producer vs. single consumer, it is the traditional fifo,
> > If has multiple producers, it uses the algorithm as followings:
> > 
> > For the producer, it uses two steps to update the ring:
> >     - first step, occupy the entry in the ring:
> > 
> > retry:
> >        in = ring->in
> >        if (cmpxhg(&ring->in, in, in +1) != in)
> >              goto retry;
> > 
> >       after that the entry pointed by ring->data[in] has been owned by
> >       the producer.
> > 
> >       assert(ring->data[in] == NULL);
> > 
> >       Note, no other producer can touch this entry so that this entry
> >       should always be the initialized state.
> > 
> >     - second step, write the data to the entry:
> > 
> >       ring->data[in] = data;
> > 
> > For the consumer, it first checks if there is available entry in the
> > ring and fetches the entry from the ring:
> > 
> >       if (!ring_is_empty(ring))
> >            entry = &ring[ring->out];
> > 
> >       Note: the ring->out has not been updated so that the entry pointed
> >       by ring->out is completely owned by the consumer.
> > 
> > Then it checks if the data is ready:
> > 
> > retry:
> >       if (*entry == NULL)
> >              goto retry;
> > That means, the producer has updated the index but haven't written any
> > data to it.
> > 
> > Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
> > state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
> > 
> >        data = *entry;
> >        *entry = NULL;
> >        ring->out++;
> > 
> > Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
> > 
> > (1)https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
> > (2)http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
> > ---
> 
> May I ask why you need a MPSC ring here? Can we just use N SPSC ring for
> submitting pages and another N SPSC ring for passing back results?
> 
> Thanks

Or just an SPSC ring + a lock.
How big of a gain is lockless access to a trivial structure
like the ring?

Jason Wang June 29, 2018, 6:15 a.m. UTC | #11

On 2018年06月29日 11:59, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>
> On 06/28/2018 09:36 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年06月04日 17:55, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> From: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
>>> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
>>> single consumer.
>>>
>
>>> Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the 
>>> initialized
>>> state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
>>>
>>>        data = *entry;
>>>        *entry = NULL;
>>>        ring->out++;
>>>
>>> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the 
>>> code.
>>>
>>> (1)https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h 
>>>
>>> (2)http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>>> ---
>>
>> May I ask why you need a MPSC ring here? Can we just use N SPSC ring 
>> for submitting pages and another N SPSC ring for passing back results?
>
> Sure.
>
> We had this option in our mind, however, it is not scalable which will 
> slow
> the main thread down, instead, we'd rather to speed up main thread and 
> move
> reasonable workload to the threads.

I'm not quite understand the scalability issue here. Is it because of 
main thread need go through all N rings (which I think not)?

Thanks

Xiao Guangrong June 29, 2018, 7:30 a.m. UTC | #12

Hi Michael,

On 06/20/2018 08:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:
>> From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>

>>
>>
>> (1) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
>> (2) http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
> 
> So instead of all this super-optimized trickiness, how about
> a simple port of ptr_ring from linux?
> 
> That one isn't lockless but it's known to outperform
> most others for a single producer/single consumer case.
> And with a ton of networking going on,
> who said it's such a hot spot? OTOH this implementation
> has more barriers which slows down each individual thread.
> It's also a source of bugs.
> 

Thank you for pointing it out.

I just quickly went through the code of ptr_ring that is very nice and
really impressive. I will consider to port it to QEMU.

> Further, atomic tricks this one uses are not fair so some threads can get
> completely starved while others make progress. There's also no
> chance to mix aggressive polling and sleeping with this
> kind of scheme, so the starved thread will consume lots of
> CPU.
> 
> So I'd like to see a simple ring used, and then a patch on top
> switching to this tricky one with performance comparison
> along with that.
> 

I agree with you, i will make a version that uses a lock for multiple
producers and doing incremental optimizations based on it.

>> ---
>>   migration/ring.h | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 265 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 migration/ring.h
>>
>> diff --git a/migration/ring.h b/migration/ring.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..da9b8bdcbb
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/migration/ring.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Ring Buffer
>> + *
>> + * Multiple producers and single consumer are supported with lock free.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (c) 2018 Tencent Inc
>> + *
>> + * Authors:
>> + *  Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
>> + *
>> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later.
>> + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _RING__
>> +#define _RING__
> 
> Prefix Ring is too short.
> 

Okay, will improve it.

>> +    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], NULL);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * (B) smp_mb() is needed as we should read the entry out before
>> +     * updating ring->out as we did in __ring_get().
>> +     *
>> +     * (A) smp_wmb() is needed as we should make the entry be NULL before
>> +     * updating ring->out (which will make the entry be visible and usable).
>> +     */
> 
> I can't say I understand this all.
> And the interaction of acquire/release semantics with smp_*
> barriers is even scarier.
> 

Hmm... the parallel accesses for these two indexes and the data stored
in the ring are subtle indeed. :(

>> +    atomic_store_release(&ring->out, ring->out + 1);
>> +
>> +    return data;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
>> +{
>> +    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
>> +        return ring_mp_put(ring, data);
>> +    }
>> +    return __ring_put(ring, data);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void *ring_get(Ring *ring)
>> +{
>> +    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
>> +        return ring_mp_get(ring);
>> +    }
>> +    return __ring_get(ring);
>> +}
>> +#endif
> 
> 
> A bunch of tricky barriers retries etc all over the place.  This sorely
> needs *a lot of* unit tests. Where are they?

I used the code attached in this mail to test & benchmark the patches during
my development which does not dedicate for Ring, instead it is based
on the framework of compression.

Yes, test cases are useful and really needed, i will do it... :)

Xiao Guangrong June 29, 2018, 7:44 a.m. UTC | #13

On 06/29/2018 12:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 09:36:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年06月04日 17:55, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> From: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>>>

>>> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
>>>
>>> (1)https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
>>> (2)http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>>> ---
>>
>> May I ask why you need a MPSC ring here? Can we just use N SPSC ring for
>> submitting pages and another N SPSC ring for passing back results?
>>
>> Thanks
> 
> Or just an SPSC ring + a lock.
> How big of a gain is lockless access to a trivial structure
> like the ring?
> 

Okay, i will give a try.

BTW, we tried to use a global ring + lock for input and lockless ring for input,
the former did not show better performance. But we haven't tried to use global
ring + lock for out yet.

Xiao Guangrong June 29, 2018, 7:47 a.m. UTC | #14

On 06/29/2018 02:15 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018年06月29日 11:59, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/28/2018 09:36 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018年06月04日 17:55, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> From: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both
>>>> single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.
>>>> single consumer.
>>>>
>>
>>>> Finally, it fetches the valid data out, set the entry to the initialized
>>>> state and update ring->out to make the entry be usable to the producer:
>>>>
>>>>        data = *entry;
>>>>        *entry = NULL;
>>>>        ring->out++;
>>>>
>>>> Memory barrier is omitted here, please refer to the comment in the code.
>>>>
>>>> (1)https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/kfifo.h
>>>> (2)http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ring_8h.html
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<[e-mail]>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> May I ask why you need a MPSC ring here? Can we just use N SPSC ring for submitting pages and another N SPSC ring for passing back results?
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> We had this option in our mind, however, it is not scalable which will slow
>> the main thread down, instead, we'd rather to speed up main thread and move
>> reasonable workload to the threads.
> 
> I'm not quite understand the scalability issue here. Is it because of main thread need go through all N rings (which I think not)?

Yes, it is.

The main thread need to check each single thread and wait
it done one by one...

Paul E. McKenney July 3, 2018, 3:55 p.m. UTC | #15

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:55:08AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> 

> 

> On 06/28/2018 07:55 PM, Wei Wang wrote:

> >On 06/28/2018 06:02 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:

> >>

> >>CC: Paul, Peter Zijlstra, Stefani, Lai who are all good at memory barrier.

> >>

> >>

> >>On 06/20/2018 12:52 PM, Peter Xu wrote:

> >>>On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:17PM +0800, [e-mail] wrote:

> >>>>From: Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>

> >>>>

> >>>>It's the simple lockless ring buffer implement which supports both

> >>>>single producer vs. single consumer and multiple producers vs.

> >>>>single consumer.

> >>>>

> >>>>Many lessons were learned from Linux Kernel's kfifo (1) and DPDK's

> >>>>rte_ring (2) before i wrote this implement. It corrects some bugs of

> >>>>memory barriers in kfifo and it is the simpler lockless version of

> >>>>rte_ring as currently multiple access is only allowed for producer.

> >>>

> >>>Could you provide some more information about the kfifo bug? Any

> >>>pointer would be appreciated.

> >>>

> >>

> >>Sure, i reported one of the memory barrier issue to linux kernel:

> >>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/11/58

> >>

> >>Actually, beside that, there is another memory barrier issue in kfifo,

> >>please consider this case:

> >>

> >>   at the beginning

> >>   ring->size = 4

> >>   ring->out = 0

> >>   ring->in = 4

> >>

> >>     Consumer                            Producer

> >> ---------------                     --------------

> >>   index = ring->out; /* index == 0 */

> >>   ring->out++; /* ring->out == 1 */

> >>   < Re-Order >

> >>                                    out = ring->out;

> >>                                    if (ring->in - out >= ring->mask)

> >>                                        return -EFULL;

> >>                                    /* see the ring is not full */

> >>                                    index = ring->in & ring->mask; /* index == 0 */

> >>                                    ring->data[index] = new_data;

> >>　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ring->in++;

> >>

> >>   data = ring->data[index];

> >>   !!!!!! the old data is lost !!!!!!

> >>

> >>So we need to make sure:

> >>1) for the consumer, we should read the ring->data[] out before updating ring->out

> >>2) for the producer, we should read ring->out before updating ring->data[]

> >>

> >>as followings:

> >>      Producer                                       Consumer

> >>  ------------------------------------ ------------------------

> >>      Reading ring->out                            Reading ring->data[index]

> >>      smp_mb()                                     smp_mb()

> >>      Setting ring->data[index] = data ring->out++

> >>

> >>[ i used atomic_store_release() and atomic_load_acquire() instead of smp_mb() in the

> >>  patch. ]

> >>

> >>But i am not sure if we can use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() in the producer?

> >

> >

> >I wonder if this could be solved by simply tweaking the above consumer implementation:

> >

> >[1] index = ring->out;

> >[2] data = ring->data[index];

> >[3] index++;

> >[4] ring->out = index;

> >

> >Now [2] and [3] forms a WAR dependency, which avoids the reordering.

> 

> It can not. [2] and [4] still do not any dependency, CPU and complainer can omit

> the 'index'.


One thing to try would be the Linux-kernel memory model tools in
tools/memory-model in current mainline.  There is a README file describing
how to install and set it up, with a number of files in Documentation
and litmus-tests that can help guide you.

							Thanx, Paul

Patch

diff --git a/migration/ring.h b/migration/ring.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..da9b8bdcbb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/migration/ring.h
@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@ 
+/*
+ * Ring Buffer
+ *
+ * Multiple producers and single consumer are supported with lock free.
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2018 Tencent Inc
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ *  Xiao Guangrong <[e-mail]>
+ *
+ * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later.
+ * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
+ */
+
+#ifndef _RING__
+#define _RING__
+
+#define CACHE_LINE  64
+#define cache_aligned __attribute__((__aligned__(CACHE_LINE)))
+
+#define RING_MULTI_PRODUCER 0x1
+
+struct Ring {
+    unsigned int flags;
+    unsigned int size;
+    unsigned int mask;
+
+    unsigned int in cache_aligned;
+
+    unsigned int out cache_aligned;
+
+    void *data[0] cache_aligned;
+};
+typedef struct Ring Ring;
+
+/*
+ * allocate and initialize the ring
+ *
+ * @size: the number of element, it should be power of 2
+ * @flags: set to RING_MULTI_PRODUCER if the ring has multiple producer,
+ *         otherwise set it to 0, i,e. single producer and single consumer.
+ *
+ * return the ring.
+ */
+static inline Ring *ring_alloc(unsigned int size, unsigned int flags)
+{
+    Ring *ring;
+
+    assert(is_power_of_2(size));
+
+    ring = g_malloc0(sizeof(*ring) + size * sizeof(void *));
+    ring->size = size;
+    ring->mask = ring->size - 1;
+    ring->flags = flags;
+    return ring;
+}
+
+static inline void ring_free(Ring *ring)
+{
+    g_free(ring);
+}
+
+static inline bool __ring_is_empty(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
+{
+    return in == out;
+}
+
+static inline bool ring_is_empty(Ring *ring)
+{
+    return ring->in == ring->out;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned int ring_len(unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
+{
+    return in - out;
+}
+
+static inline bool
+__ring_is_full(Ring *ring, unsigned int in, unsigned int out)
+{
+    return ring_len(in, out) > ring->mask;
+}
+
+static inline bool ring_is_full(Ring *ring)
+{
+    return __ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, ring->out);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned int ring_index(Ring *ring, unsigned int pos)
+{
+    return pos & ring->mask;
+}
+
+static inline int __ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
+{
+    unsigned int index, out;
+
+    out = atomic_load_acquire(&ring->out);
+    /*
+     * smp_mb()
+     *
+     * should read ring->out before updating the entry, see the comments in
+     * __ring_get().
+     */
+
+    if (__ring_is_full(ring, ring->in, out)) {
+        return -ENOBUFS;
+    }
+
+    index = ring_index(ring, ring->in);
+
+    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], data);
+
+    /*
+     * should make sure the entry is updated before increasing ring->in
+     * otherwise the consumer will get a entry but its content is useless.
+     */
+    smp_wmb();
+    atomic_set(&ring->in, ring->in + 1);
+    return 0;
+}
+
+static inline void *__ring_get(Ring *ring)
+{
+    unsigned int index, in;
+    void *data;
+
+    in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
+
+    /*
+     * should read ring->in first to make sure the entry pointed by this
+     * index is available, see the comments in __ring_put().
+     */
+    smp_rmb();
+    if (__ring_is_empty(in, ring->out)) {
+        return NULL;
+    }
+
+    index = ring_index(ring, ring->out);
+
+    data = atomic_read(&ring->data[index]);
+
+    /*
+     * smp_mb()
+     *
+     * once the ring->out is updated the entry originally indicated by the
+     * the index is visible and usable to the producer so that we should
+     * make sure reading the entry out before updating ring->out to avoid
+     * the entry being overwritten by the producer.
+     */
+    atomic_store_release(&ring->out, ring->out + 1);
+
+    return data;
+}
+
+static inline int ring_mp_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
+{
+    unsigned int index, in, in_next, out;
+
+    do {
+        in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
+        out = atomic_read(&ring->out);
+
+        if (__ring_is_full(ring, in, out)) {
+            if (atomic_read(&ring->in) == in &&
+                atomic_read(&ring->out) == out) {
+                return -ENOBUFS;
+            }
+
+            /* a entry has been fetched out, retry. */
+            continue;
+        }
+
+        in_next = in + 1;
+    } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&ring->in, in, in_next) != in);
+
+    index = ring_index(ring, in);
+
+    /*
+     * smp_rmb() paired with the memory barrier of (A) in ring_mp_get()
+     * is implied in atomic_cmpxchg() as we should read ring->out first
+     * before fetching the entry, otherwise this assert will fail.
+     */
+    assert(!atomic_read(&ring->data[index]));
+
+    /*
+     * smp_mb() paired with the memory barrier of (B) in ring_mp_get() is
+     * implied in atomic_cmpxchg(), that is needed here as  we should read
+     * ring->out before updating the entry, it is the same as we did in
+     * __ring_put().
+     *
+     * smp_wmb() paired with the memory barrier of (C) in ring_mp_get()
+     * is implied in atomic_cmpxchg(), that is needed as we should increase
+     * ring->in before updating the entry.
+     */
+    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], data);
+
+    return 0;
+}
+
+static inline void *ring_mp_get(Ring *ring)
+{
+    unsigned int index, in;
+    void *data;
+
+    do {
+        in = atomic_read(&ring->in);
+
+        /*
+         * (C) should read ring->in first to make sure the entry pointed by this
+         * index is available
+         */
+        smp_rmb();
+
+        if (!__ring_is_empty(in, ring->out)) {
+            break;
+        }
+
+        if (atomic_read(&ring->in) == in) {
+            return NULL;
+        }
+        /* new entry has been added in, retry. */
+    } while (1);
+
+    index = ring_index(ring, ring->out);
+
+    do {
+        data = atomic_read(&ring->data[index]);
+        if (data) {
+            break;
+        }
+        /* the producer is updating the entry, retry */
+        cpu_relax();
+    } while (1);
+
+    atomic_set(&ring->data[index], NULL);
+
+    /*
+     * (B) smp_mb() is needed as we should read the entry out before
+     * updating ring->out as we did in __ring_get().
+     *
+     * (A) smp_wmb() is needed as we should make the entry be NULL before
+     * updating ring->out (which will make the entry be visible and usable).
+     */
+    atomic_store_release(&ring->out, ring->out + 1);
+
+    return data;
+}
+
+static inline int ring_put(Ring *ring, void *data)
+{
+    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
+        return ring_mp_put(ring, data);
+    }
+    return __ring_put(ring, data);
+}
+
+static inline void *ring_get(Ring *ring)
+{
+    if (ring->flags & RING_MULTI_PRODUCER) {
+        return ring_mp_get(ring);
+    }
+    return __ring_get(ring);
+}
+#endif