Search Explore

  • scottlamb · 17 hours ago

    > Disclaimer: An earlier version of this post claimed the structure is wait-free, this is incorrect. Being wait-free requires that failure or suspension of any thread can’t cause failure or suspension of another thread. This queue in fact does not fulfill that requirement. The main section which discusses the wait bounds of queue operations has been amended to reflect this, but other parts of this article have not been. As such there may parts of the text which refer to this as a wait-free queue, which it is not. I chose to keep those sections to avoid rewriting chunks of this post after it was already posted. Thanks for the correction Reddit user matthieum!

    Classy disclaimer! matthieum's (long) reddit comment is also an informative read: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1up0uhg/girls_just_wa...

    • RossBencina · 16 hours ago

      Thanks. I jumped at the headline. I'd be happy with wait-free MPSC. I haven't checked in for a while. Have there been any breakthroughs in low-complexity wait-free queues in the past 10 years?

        • platinumrad · 16 hours ago

          I suspect the search space of low-complexity, or at least what I'd consider "low-complexity", wait-free queues is pretty much exhausted at this point.

          • gavinray · 16 hours ago

            The closest thing I know of, is that there was a concurrent queue algo called LCRQ

            It originally required double-width CAS, but IIRC in recent years someone figured out how to remove this to make it more portable

            Best reference I could find from cursory google:

            https://ppopp23.sigplan.org/details/PPoPP-2023-papers/2/The-...

            • platinumrad · 12 hours ago

              Both Vyukov queues are fast and useful in practice, but neither is even obstruction-free, let alone lock-free or wait-free.

              • nly · 11 hours ago

                What's important is you know the trade-offs you are making.

                You can't have a bounded queue that is always non-blocking because slow consumers can block producers.

                You can't have a global FIFO order + multiple producers without slow producers blocking consumers.

                You can't have a global FIFO order + have have non-atomic reserve and commit without a interrupted/de-scheduled producer thread being able to block the consumer

                If you want atomic commit then you lose separate reserve which means either unbounded memory or atomic fixed-size data with sentinel values, ABA problems etc.

                There are trade-offs everywhere, and it's best to pick the data structure that fits your needs just like any other problem.

                • tialaramex · 10 hours ago

                  > There are trade-offs everywhere, and it's best to pick the data structure that fits your needs just like any other problem.

                  That part I think is most crucial. Neither "Lock-free" nor "Wait-free" are vague terms for how awesome a thing is, they're specific properties which are expensive to provide, if you need such a property it was indispensable, if you don't need it then you can likely do better without it.

                  • platinumrad · 10 hours ago

                    Exactly. I mentioned that those queues aren't formally obstruction-free because the context of the conversation was new developments in wait-free queues, even though I have only needed the guarantee once in my career and end up using descendants of the Vyukov MPMC cycle queue in practically all other cases because they are better on the metrics that count, like speed.

                    • nly · 10 hours ago

                      What was the one time when you need something wait free? I'm assuming interacting with hardware?

                      • platinumrad · 9 hours ago

                        Hard real-time industrial automation. Worst job ever, by the way.

            • reinitctxoffset · 9 hours ago

              Not a ton, the inexorable march to wider scalar dispatch, deeper pipelines, and ever less uniform geometries (I pine for the halcyon days of two NUMA modes with a QPI bar) has made asymmetrical fencing juicy enough to be be worth the squeeze at the margins, you weren't seeing a ton of `asm volatile ""` on one side and `membarrier()` on the other a decade ago and you'll see that now.

              But I think Nathan Bronson's work out of IIRC Standford about 10 or 15 years ago is still more or less the canvas you paint on.

          • RossBencina · 16 hours ago

            Perhaps I missed it but there didn't appear to be discussion of false sharing between the N individual data slots. It might be beneficial to pad each slot to a cache line width (or at least less slots per line), and/or using some kind of bijective hashing on the slot lookup so that sequential tickets don't access adjacent slots.

            • rigtorp · 11 hours ago

              You would use one of those approaches:

              If you align and pad each slot there won't be any false sharing and the stream prefetcher can kick in if there's only one producer or consumer.

              If you use bijective hashing you reduce false sharing without aligning and padding. This can save memory at the expense of the stream prefetcher never kicking in.

              • platinumrad · 12 hours ago

                This was the very best bounded MPMC queue when I last looked into these things years ago, and as far as descendants of the Vyukov MPMC cycle queue go, I don't think it's possible to do much better.

                I think your citation date is off, by the way. As far as I can tell, it was first published in January 2011.

              • Human-Cabbage · 10 hours ago

                Surprised nobody here nor on the reddit thread caught this one: https://github.com/nahla-nee/wfqueue/blob/main/src/lib.rs#L3...

                    unsafe impl<T, const N: usize> Sync for WFQueue<T, N> {}
    unsafe impl<T, const N: usize> Send for WFQueue<T, N> {}
                These impls are unsound, because neither constrains `T` to be `Sync`/`Send`. As-written this would let you declare a `WFQueue<Rc<T>, N>` and pass non-atomic-refcount pointers between threads.

                The fix is straightforward:

                    unsafe impl<T: Sync, const N: usize> Sync for WFQueue<T, N> {}
    unsafe impl<T: Send, const N: usize> Send for WFQueue<T, N> {}
                I.e., WFQueue is only Sync if T is Sync, and likewise for Send.

                Actually, later on, the code makes a similar mistake, but only for one impl.

                    unsafe impl<'a, T, const N: usize> Send for DrivableWFEnqueue<'a, T, N> where T: Send {}
    unsafe impl<'a, T, const N: usize> Send for DrivableWFDequeue<'a, T, N> {}

                • ThePowerOfFuet · 5 hours ago

                  >fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting

                  Sounds like fun.

                  • xxs · 2 hours ago

                    It's very rare (if ever) I'd want M on both ends... and no work stealing. Usually it's one M and an S.