21.03.2025 19:33, Andres Freund пишет:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-03-21 14:35:16 +0300, Yura Sokolov wrote:
>> From 080c9e0de5e6e10751347e1ff50b65df424744cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Yura Sokolov <y.soko...@postgrespro.ru>
>> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 11:58:33 +0300
>> Subject: [PATCH v2] sinvaladt.c: use atomic operations on maxMsgNum
>>
>> msgnumLock spinlock could be highly contended.
>> Comment states it was used as memory barrier.
>> Lets use atomic ops with memory barriers directly instead.
>>
>> Note: patch uses pg_read_barrier()/pg_write_barrier() instead of
>> pg_atomic_read_membarrier_u32()/pg_atomic_write_membarrier_u32() since
>> no full barrier semantic is required, and explicit read/write barriers
>> are cheaper at least on x86_64.
>
> Is it actually true that full barriers aren't required? I think we might
> actually rely on a stronger ordering.
>
>
>> @@ -506,10 +493,9 @@ SIGetDataEntries(SharedInvalidationMessage *data, int
>> datasize)
>> */
>> stateP->hasMessages = false;
>>
>> - /* Fetch current value of maxMsgNum using spinlock */
>> - SpinLockAcquire(&segP->msgnumLock);
>> - max = segP->maxMsgNum;
>> - SpinLockRelease(&segP->msgnumLock);
>> + /* Fetch current value of maxMsgNum using atomic with memory barrier */
>> + max = pg_atomic_read_u32(&segP->maxMsgNum);
>> + pg_read_barrier();
>>
>> if (stateP->resetState)
>> {
>> /*
>> * Force reset. We can say we have dealt with any messages
>> added
>> * since the reset, as well; and that means we should clear the
>> * signaled flag, too.
>> */
>> stateP->nextMsgNum = max;
>> stateP->resetState = false;
>> stateP->signaled = false;
>> LWLockRelease(SInvalReadLock);
>> return -1;
>> }
>
> vs
>
>> @@ -410,17 +398,16 @@ SIInsertDataEntries(const SharedInvalidationMessage
>> *data, int n)
>> /*
>> * Insert new message(s) into proper slot of circular buffer
>> */
>> - max = segP->maxMsgNum;
>> + max = pg_atomic_read_u32(&segP->maxMsgNum);
>> while (nthistime-- > 0)
>> {
>> segP->buffer[max % MAXNUMMESSAGES] = *data++;
>> max++;
>> }
>>
>> - /* Update current value of maxMsgNum using spinlock */
>> - SpinLockAcquire(&segP->msgnumLock);
>> - segP->maxMsgNum = max;
>> - SpinLockRelease(&segP->msgnumLock);
>> + /* Update current value of maxMsgNum using atomic with memory
>> barrier */
>> + pg_write_barrier();
>> + pg_atomic_write_u32(&segP->maxMsgNum, max);
>>
>> /*
>> * Now that the maxMsgNum change is globally visible, we give
>> everyone
>> * a swift kick to make sure they read the newly added messages.
>> * Releasing SInvalWriteLock will enforce a full memory
>> barrier, so
>> * these (unlocked) changes will be committed to memory before
>> we exit
>> * the function.
>> */
>> for (i = 0; i < segP->numProcs; i++)
>> {
>> ProcState *stateP =
>> &segP->procState[segP->pgprocnos[i]];
>>
>> stateP->hasMessages = true;
>> }
>
> On a loosely ordered architecture, the hasMessage=false in SIGetDataEntries()
> could be reordered with the read of maxMsgNum. Which, afaict, would lead to
> missing messages. That's not prevented by the pg_write_barrier() in
> SIInsertDataEntries(). I think there may be other similar dangers.
>
> This could be solved by adding full memory barriers in a few places.
It is quite interesting remark, because SpinLockAcquire may be implemented
as `__sync_lock_test_and_set(lock, 1)` [1] on ARM/ARM64, and
`__sync_lock_test_and_set` has only "acquire barrier" semantic as GCC's
documentation says [2] . More over, `__sync_lock_release` used in this case
also provides only "release barrier" semantic.
Therefore, concerning these facts, current code state also doesn't give
guarantee `stateP->hasMessage = false` will not be reordered with `max =
segP->maxMsgNum`. Nor following read of messages are guaranteed to happen
after `max = segP->maxMsgNum`.
Given your expectations for SpinLockAcquire and SpinLockRelease to be full
memory barriers, and probably numerous usages of them as such, their
current implementation on ARM/ARM64 looks to be completely broken, imho.
[1]
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/b3754dcc9ff7aba2268e98ecf4b5546353305cd2/src/include/storage/s_lock.h#L244-L264
[2]
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-15.1.0/gcc/_005f_005fsync-Builtins.html#index-_005f_005fsync_005flock_005ftest_005fand_005fset
--
regards
Yura Sokolov aka funny-falcon
