> -----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?
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.
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
>
