I'm working on some code that has a global array that can be accessed by two threads for reading writing purposes.
There will be no batch processing where a range of indexes are read or written, so I'm trying to figure out if I should lock the entire array or only the array index I am currently using.
The easiest solution would be to consider the array a CS and put a big fat lock around it, but can I avoid this and just lock an index?
Cheers.
Locking one index implies that you can keep track of which thread is accessing what part of the array. Keeping track of this information, which is shared between the reading and the writing thread, implies that you have one lock around this information. So, you still end up with a global lock.
In this situation, I think that the most efficient approaches are:
- using a reader/writer lock
- or dividing the big array into a few subsets, each subset using a distinct lock.
If this is C++ i suggest you to use STL containers. std::vector or something else which suits your job. They are fast, easy to use, no memory leaks.
If you want to do it all by your self, then of course one method will be to use a single mutex ( which is bad ).
or you can use some reader writer thingy for the whole array.
I think its not feasible to make each element of an array thread safe with its own lock!! that would eat your memory. Check the link and there are 3 solutions with different out comes. Test them out and use the best for your case. ( don't think like "ok i think my program needs the readers preference algorithm". try using it in your system and decide. because we really cant assume such things sometimes )
There is no way of knowing what will be optimal unless you profile under realistic running conditions. I would suggest implementing an array-like class, where you can lock a varying number of elements in groups. Then you fine-tune the size of these groups.
Another option would be to enqueue all read/write operations using an active object. This would make all access sequential, and means you could use a non-concurrent array type to store the data. It would require some sort of concurrent queue data structure under the hood.
Related
I have a situation where I have a legacy multi-threaded application I'm trying to move to a linux platform and convert into C++.
I have a fixed size array of integers:
int R[5000];
And I perform a lot of operations like:
R[5] = (R[10] + R[20]) / 50;
R[5]++;
I have one Foreground task that mostly reads the values....but on occasion can update one. And then I have a background worker that is updating the values constantly.
I need to make this structure thread safe.
I would rather only update the value if the value has actually changed. The worker is constantly collecting data and doing calculation and storing the data whether it changes or not.
So should I create a custom class MyInt which has the structure and then include an array of mutexes to lock for updating/reading each value and then overload the [], =, ++, +=, -=, etc? Or should I try to implement anatomic integer array?
Any suggestions as to what that would look like? I'd like to try and keep the above notation for doing the updates...but I get that it might not be possible.
Thanks,
WB
The first thing to do is make the program work reliably, and the easiest way to do that is to have a Mutex that is used to control access to the entire array. That is, whenever either thread needs to read or write to anything in the array, it should do:
the_mutex.lock();
// do all the array-reads, calculations, and array-writes it needs to do
the_mutex.unlock();
... then test your program and see if it still runs fast enough for your needs. If so, you're done; that's all you need to do.
If you find that the program isn't fast enough due to contention on the mutex, you can start trying optimizations to make things faster. For example, if you know that your threads' operations will only need to work on local segments of the array at one time, you could create multiple mutexes, and assign different subsets of the array to each mutex (e.g. mutex #1 is used to serialize access to the first 100 array items, mutex #2 for the second 100 array items, etc). That will greatly decrease the chances of one thread having to wait for the other thread to release a mutex before it can continue.
If things still aren't fast enough for you, you could then look in to having two different arrays, one for each thread, and occasionally copying from one array to the other. That way each thread could safely access its own private array without any serialization needed. The copying operation would need to be handled carefully, probably using some sort of inter-thread message-passing protocol.
So I was trying to optimize an array operation in Julia, but noticed that I was getting a rather large error on my matrix occasionally. I also noticed that there existed the possibility of concurrently writing to the same index of a SharedArray in Julia. I was wondering if Julia can safely handle it. If not, how may I able able to handle it?
Here is a basic example of my issue
for a list of arbitrary x,y indexes in array J
j[x,y] += some_value
end
Can Julia handle this case or, like C, will there exist the possibility of overwriting the data. Are their atomic operations in Julia to compensate ffor this?
Shared arrays deliberately have no locking, since locking can be expensive. The easiest approach is to assign non-overlapping work to different processes. However, you might search to see whether someone has written a locking library, or have a go at it yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_exclusion
I am writing a Multithreaded application. That application contains an array of length, lets say, 1000.
If I now would have two threads and I would make sure, that thread 1 will only access the elements 0-499 and thread 2 would only access elements 500-999, would I need a locking mechanism to protect the array or would that be fine.
Note: Only the content of the array will be changed during calculations! The array wont be moved, memcpyed or in some other way altered than altering elements inside of the array.
What you want is perfectly fine! Those kind of strategies (melt together with a bunch of low level atomic primitives) are the basis for what's called lock-free programming.
Actually, there could be possible problems in implementing this solution. You have to strongly guarantee the properties, that you have mentioned.
Make sure, that your in memory data array never moves. You cannot rely on most std containers. Most of them could significantly change during modification. std::map are rebalancing inner trees and making some inner pointers invalid. std::vector sometimes reallocates the whole container when inserting.
Make sure that there is only one consumer and only one producer for any data, that you have. Each consumer have to store inner iterator in valid state to prevent reading same item twice, or skip some item. Each producer must put data in valid place, without possibility to overwrite existing, not read data.
Disobeying of any of this rules makes you need to implement mutexes.
I am looking for a method to implement lock-free queue data structure that supports single producer, and multiple consumers. I have looked at the classic method by Maged Michael and Michael Scott (1996) but their version uses linked lists. I would like an implementation that makes use of bounded circular buffer. Something that uses atomic variables?
On a side note, I am not sure why these classic methods are designed for linked lists that require a lot of dynamic memory management. In a multi-threaded program, all memory management routines are serialized. Aren't we defeating the benefits of lock-free methods by using them in conjunction with dynamic data structures?
I am trying to code this in C/C++ using pthread library on a Intel 64-bit architecture.
Thank you,
Shirish
The use of a circular buffer makes a lock necessary, since blocking is needed to prevent the head from going past the tail. But otherwise the head and tail pointers can easily be updated atomically. Or in some cases the buffer can be so large that overwriting is not an issue. (in real life you will see this in automated trading systems, with circular buffers sized to hold X minutes of market data. If you are X minutes behind, you have wayyyy worse problems than overwriting your buffer).
When I implemented the MS queue in C++, I built a lock free allocator using a stack, which is very easy to implement. If I have MSQueue then at compile time I know sizeof(MSQueue::node). Then I make a stack of N buffers of the required size. The N can grow, i.e. if pop() returns null, it is easy to go ask the heap for more blocks, and these are pushed onto the stack. Outside of the possibly blocking call for more memory, this is a lock free operation.
Note that the T cannot have a non-trivial dtor. I worked on a version that did allow for non-trivial dtors, that actually worked. But I found that it was easier just to make the T a pointer to the T that I wanted, where the producer released ownership, and the consumer acquired ownership. This of course requires that the T itself is allocated using lockfree methods, but the same allocator I made with the stack works here as well.
In any case the point of lock-free programming is not that the data structures themselves are slower. The points are this:
lock free makes me independent of the scheduler. Lock-based programming depends on the scheduler to make sure that the holders of a lock are running so that they can release the lock. This is what causes "priority inversion" On Linux there are some lock attributes to make sure this happens
If I am independent of the scheduler, the OS has a far easier time managing timeslices, and I get far less context switching
it is easier to write correct multithreaded programs using lockfree methods since I dont have to worry about deadlock , livelock, scheduling, syncronization, etc This is espcially true with shared memory implementations, where a process could die while holding a lock in shared memory, and there is no way to release the lock
lock free methods are far easier to scale. In fact, I have implemented lock free methods using messaging over a network. Distributed locks like this are a nightmare
That said, there are many cases where lock-based methods are preferable and/or required
when updating things that are expensive or impossible to copy. Most lock free methods use some sort of versioning, i.e. make a copy of the object, update it, and check if the shared version is still the same as when you copied it, then make the current version you update version. Els ecopy it again, apply the update, and check again. Keep doing this until it works. This is fine when the objects are small, but it they are large, or contain file handles, etc then not recommended
Most types are impossible to access in a lock free way, e.g. any STL container. These have invariants that require non atomic access , for example assert(vector.size()==vector.end()-vector.begin()). So if you are updating/reading a vector that is shared, you have to lock it.
This is an old question, but no one has provided an accepted solution. So I offer this info for others who may be searching.
This website: http://www.1024cores.net
Provides some really useful lockfree/waitfree data structures with thorough explanations.
What you are seeking is a lock-free solution to the reader/writer problem.
See: http://www.1024cores.net/home/lock-free-algorithms/reader-writer-problem
For a traditional one-block circular buffer I think this simply cannot be done safely with atomic operations. You need to do so much in one read. Suppose you have a structure that has this:
uint8_t* buf;
unsigned int size; // Actual max. buffer size
unsigned int length; // Actual stored data length (suppose in write prohibited from being > size)
unsigned int offset; // Start of current stored data
On a read you need to do the following (this is how I implemented it anyway, you can swap some steps like I'll discuss afterwards):
Check if the read length does not surpass stored length
Check if the offset+read length do not surpass buffer boundaries
Read data out
Increase offset, decrease length
What should you certainly do synchronised (so atomic) to make this work? Actually combine steps 1 and 4 in one atomic step, or to clarify: do this synchronised:
check read_length, this can be sth like read_length=min(read_length,length);
decrease length with read_length: length-=read_length
get a local copy from offset unsigned int local_offset = offset
increase offset with read_length: offset+=read_length
Afterwards you can just do a memcpy (or whatever) starting from your local_offset, check if your read goes over circular buffer size (split in 2 memcpy's), ... . This is 'quite' threadsafe, your write method could still write over the memory you're reading, so make sure your buffer is really large enough to minimize that possibility.
Now, while I can imagine you can combine 3 and 4 (I guess that's what they do in the linked-list case) or even 1 and 2 in atomic operations, I cannot see you do this whole deal in one atomic operation :).
You can however try to drop 'length' checking if your consumers are very smart and will always know what to read. You'd also need a new woffset variable then, because the old method of (offset+length)%size to determine write offset wouldn't work anymore. Note this is close to the case of a linked list, where you actually always read one element (= fixed, known size) from the list. Also here, if you make it a circular linked list, you can read to much or write to a position you're reading at that moment!
Finally: my advise, just go with locks, I use a CircularBuffer class, completely safe for reading & writing) for a realtime 720p60 video streamer and I have got no speed issues at all from locking.
This is an old question but no one has provided an answer that precisely answers it. Given that still comes up high in search results for (nearly) the same question, there should be an answer, given that one exists.
There may be more than one solution, but here is one that has an implementation:
https://github.com/tudinfse/FFQ
The conference paper referenced in the readme details the algorithm.
I have a large array of structures, like this:
typedef struct
{
int a;
int b;
int c;
etc...
}
data_type;
data_type data[100000];
I have a bunch of separate threads, each of which will want to make alterations to elements within data[]. I need to make sure that no to threads attempt to access the same data element at the same time. To be precise: one thread performing data[475].a = 3; and another thread performing data[475].b = 7; at the same time is not allowed, but one thread performing data[475].a = 3; while another thread performs data[476].a = 7; is allowed. The program is highly speed critical. My plan is to make a separate critical section for each data element like so:
typedef struct
{
CRITICAL_SECTION critsec;
int a;
int b;
int c;
etc...
}
data_type;
In one way I guess it should all work and I should have no real questions, but not having had much experience in multithreaded programming I am just feeling a little uneasy about having so many critical sections. I'm wondering if the sheer number of them could be creating some sort of inefficiency. I'm also wondering if perhaps some other multithreading technique could be faster? Should I just relax and go ahead with plan A?
With this many objects, most of their critical sections will be unlocked, and there will be almost no contention. As you already know (other comment), critical sections don't require a kernel-mode transition if they're unowned. That makes critical sections efficient for this situation.
The only other consideration would be whether you would want the critical sections inside your objects or in another array. Locality of reference is a good reason to put the critical sections inside the object. When you've entered the critical section, an entire cacheline (e.g. 16 or 32 bytes) will be in memory. With a bit of padding, you can make sure each object starts on a cacheline. As a result, the object will be (partially) in cache once its critical section is entered.
Your plan is worth trying, but I think you will find that Windows is unhappy creating that many Critical Sections. Each CS contains some kernel handle(s) and you are using up precious kernel space. I think, depending on your version of Windows, you will run out of handle memory and InitializeCriticalSection() or some other function will start to fail.
What you might want to do is have a pool of CSs available for use, and store a pointer to the 'in use' CS inside your struct. But then this gets tricky quite quickly and you will need to use Atomic operations to set/clear the CS pointer (to atomically flag the array entry as 'in use'). Might also need some reference counting, etc...
Gets complicated.
So try your way first, and see what happens. We had a similar situation once, and we had to go with a pool, but maybe things have changed since then.
Depending on the data member types in your data_type structure (and also depending on the operations you want to perform on those members), you might be able to forgo using a separate synchronization object, using the Interlocked functions instead.
In your sample code, all the data members are integers, and all the operations are assignments (and presumably reads), so you could use InterlockedExchange() to set the values atomically and InterlockedCompareExchange() to read the values atomically.
If you need to use non-integer data member types, or if you need to perform more complex operations, or if you need to coordinate atomic access to more than one operation at a time (e.g., read data[1].a and then write data[1].b), then you will have to use a synchronization object, such as a CRITICAL_SECTION.
If you must use a synchronization object, I recommend that you consider partitioning your data set into subsets and use a single synchronization object per subset. For example, you might consider using one CRITICAL_SECTION for each span of 1000 elements in the data array.
You could also consider MUTEX.
This is nice method.
Each client could reserve the resource by itself with mutex (mutual-exclusion).
This is more common, some libraries also support this with threads.
Read about boost::thread and it's mutexes
With Your approach:
data_type data[100000];
I'd be afraid of stack overflow, unless You're allocating it at the heap.
EDIT:
Boost::MUTEX
uses win32 Critical Sections
As others have pointed out, yes there is an issue and it is called too fine-grained locking.. it's resource wasteful and even though the chances are small you will start creating a lot of backing primitives and data when the things do get an occasional, call it longer than usual or whatever, contention. Plus you are wasting resources as it is not really a trivial data structure as for example in VM impls..
If I recall correctly you will have a higher chance of a SEH exception from that point onwards on Win32 or just higher memory usage. Partitioning and pooling them is probably the way to go but it is a more complex implementation. Paritioning on something else (re:action) and expecting some short-lived contention is another way to deal with it.
In any case, it is a problem of resource management with what you have right now.