crossbeam
crossbeam copied to clipboard
crossbeam-rs
[WIP] Mustardwatching epoch- and pointer-based reclamation
Here is my note on my experiment on mixing epoch-based reclamation (EBR) and pointer-based reclamation (e.g. hazard pointers, HP). My code is here: https://github.com/jeehoonkang/crossbeam/tree/snowflake/crossbeam-epoch Currently it's neither tested nor documented, unfortunately... Contributions or any form---code, documentation, comments, feedbacks---are very welcome!
Motivation
For safe memory reclamation (SMR) in concurrent data structures, a thread advertises (for experts: synchronizes reads-after-writes) that it is accessing some objects ("hazards") so that the other thread should not deallocate them. In the design of SMR schemes, the granularity of hazards is one of the most important design choices the creator should make. Roughly speaking, there are two representative choices: epoch-based reclamation (EBR) and pointer-based reclamation (e.g. hazard pointers, HP).
EBR is coarse-grained in that a thread advertises the epoch (think: timestamp) in which it is accessing the shared memory. The idea is that the garbage that is thrown in old epochs are no longer accessible from any thread and is safe to deallocate. An epoch can be incremented only if all the threads agreed to release all the pointers to the shared memory acquired in the previous epoch. EBR is usually fast because a thread needs to advertise its epoch only. On the other hand, it may not collect garbages in a timely fashion because of the coarse granularity: a thread may hold an epoch and disrupt garbage collection indefinitely. Specifically, EBR doesn't work well if (1) there exist long-lived pointers to the shared memory (e.g. map/set or cache); or (2) there are a lot of threads so that each thread cannot easily make progress. Previously long-lived pointers are handled with reference counting, which is sub-optimal because it writes to the memory even in the read path. On the other hand, the second case usually happens when the number of threads exceeds that of CPU cores, so its problem can be mitigated by using thread pools.
On the other hand, HP is fine-grained in that a thread advertises the pointers to the hazardous objects (so the name "hazard pointers"), and it can collect garbages quite aggressively thanks to the fine granularity. However, the problem is that it's often slow because a thread needs to advertise its hazard often and large.
Now time for mustardwatching! We want to take the advtange of mixing both approaches: using EBR when we can properly increment epochs, and using HP otherwise. I implemented a hybrid of EBR and HP on top of crossbeam-epoch. By doing so, we can efficiently support long-lived pointers while retaining the benefits of EBR, by simply turning the pointers into hazard pointers. The corresponding API is Guard::defend().
Performance
It's performance is comparable with the master branch in the absence of hazard pointers. Here's a comparison of the results of cargo +nightly bench:
name control ns/iter variable ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
multi_alloc_defer_free 2,060,746 2,177,730 116,984 5.68% x 0.95
multi_defer 1,329,516 1,451,704 122,188 9.19% x 0.92
multi_flush 12,558,094 28,366,437 15,808,343 125.88% x 0.44
multi_pin 4,283,460 4,174,085 -109,375 -2.55% x 1.03
single_alloc_defer_free 34 36 2 5.88% x 0.94
single_defer 17 24 7 41.18% x 0.71
single_flush 110 608 498 452.73% x 0.18
single_pin 7 8 1 14.29% x 0.88
I fully expected that flush() becomes slower: now we're checking hazard pointers in addition to epochs, which this benchmark . The performance of pin() is similar. The performance of defer() drops a little bit, but from maual inspection of generated assemblies I think it's unavoidable.
Related Work: Snowflake
I took a lot of inspiration from Microsoft Research's Snowflake (so the branch name), but my implementation differs from Snowflake in that:
- My implementation properly supports EBR and protects short-lived pointers much more efficiently, while Snowflake uses only the idea of EBR to optimize HP and it's not exposed to the users.
- My implementation doesn't support ejection of ill-behaved threads from the protocol, which guarantees robust garbage collection (i.e. a ill-behaved thread cannot block the deallocation of arbitrarily many resources).
Roughly speaking, my implementation is EBR + HP, while Snowflake is HP (boosted with EBR idea) + ejection mechanism. I've tried to design EBR + HP + ejection mechanism, but I believe EBR and ejection doesn't come along well.
Wow, this is really cool! I skimmed the code a bit and something that initially stood out is that it keeps hazards in the same bags as EBR deferred objects, which then requires a filter to ignore hazardous objects when dropping bags due to epoch expiration. Perhaps it would be possible to instead store hazards in a separate list, and give them a different type, (e.g. HazardBags), such that epoch bags can still be dropped safely without searching for hazards? Or am I missing something that prevents this?
@Vtec234 Thanks for reading the code and giving a comment! Yes, I'm also thinking about that. Actually putting deferred functions and deferred deallocation together inside an enum type (Garbage) incurs overhead quite a lot. Splitting them might be beneficial for performance.
This seems great! I feel very optimistic about this approach and believe with some work we could almost completely eliminate the overhead of hazard pointers.
I've tried to design EBR + HP + ejection mechanism, but I believe EBR and ejection doesn't come along well.
I think you are correct that if you are using EBR to protect the objects, not just to guarantee consistency of the hazard pointers, then you cannot add ejection.
P.S. Happy to chat about the .NET version we prototyped.
A status update: I implemented a series of patches related to this issue in this branch.
-
Using small epoch numbers: the Snowflake paper basically describes how to ensure safety with only 5 epochs (wrapping around). The commit is implementing that. Now the epochs can be fit in only 3 bits!
-
Supporting hazard pointers along with EBR. That's basically reimplementing what's described in this issue. It supports both epoch- and HP-protected accesses to shared memory. It now uses bloom filters. What's interesting about epochs is they are now tagged (as 3 bits) in pointers to bloom filters.
-
Supporting hazard pointers and ejection. It's dropping the support for epoch-protected accesses to shared memory, but hazard pointers are still managed with epochs. Instead, it implements an ejection mechanism which may remove a (non-cooperating) thread from EBR in a lock-free manner. As a result, it's robust (think: spatially non-blocking).
As @mjp41 suggsted, it seems EBR + ejection is impossible. (Though some non-portable schemes achieve this by e.g. investigating other thread's register files and stacks.) That's the reason why I couldn't make a scheme with EBR + HP + ejection.
Currently they're not performing very well, and I'm trying to optimize them. I think the first and second patches are worth merging, if they're suitably optimized, because they'll better support long-lived pointers than the current version. But the third patch is not suitable for being merged in crossbeam-epoch, because it changes the API a lot.
By August, I'm planning to write a paper on this, and to write a crossbeam RFC for merging the patches. I will keep reporting the status!
@tomtomjhj and I just made an article on "supporting hazard pointers and ejection": https://cp.kaist.ac.kr/gc/ Comments and feedbacks are very welcome!
@jeehoonkang Very interesting, thanks for sharing!
Two questions occurred to me:
-
At one point you write:
We compare the performance of PEBR with that of the NR (noreclamation) and EBR implementations of Crossbeam. We do not compare it with that of PBR schemes because EBR is known to outperform them by a large margin [51]
And later:
Dice et. al. proposes a variant of HP that uses a compiler fence for shield protection (Shield::protect), which frequent, and a process-wide memory fence for reclamation (collect), which is less frequent. As a result, unlike HP, their scheme is fast.
What is the relationship between these two remarks? Is EBR also much faster than the Dice et al. version of PBR? (Or might that one be worth comparing against?)
-
What criteria are used to determine when a thread should be ejected?
@glaebhoerl Thank you for your interest in our article.
-
Yes, it would have been much better to compare the performance of PEBR and that of Dice et al.'s version of HP. @tomtomjhj and I will work on it soon. Thank you for the suggestion!
-
In crossbeam's terminology, we "try_advance" once every a few calls of
defer_destroy(retirein the article), and weforce_advanceiftry_advancefails for a pre-defined number of times.
We just got noticed that this work will be published at PLDI 2020 :) But I'm still not sure how we can upstream our effort to Crossbeam (this repository).
@jeehoonkang That’s awesome! Is there any particular reason it won’t be possible to upstream your efforts to crossbeam? Is it possible to get involved somehow? (I read somewhere that optimizations are still possible).
It would be really good to have this or hazard pointers in crossbeam, especially for use cases where you have to hold a guard for a longer period (which can cause issues in EBR). :)
