Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use atomics for the StickyWorkqueue array instead of a lock #55514

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gbaraldi
Copy link
Member

I was implementing a way to change the number of workqueues in a lock-free way for use with my workstealing development and ported it to the one we already have in julia

@gbaraldi gbaraldi requested a review from vtjnash August 16, 2024 19:44
base/task.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/task.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/task.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/task.jl Outdated
while length(qs) < tid
nt = Threads.maxthreadid()
@assert tid <= nt
new_qs = copyto!(typeof(qs)(undef, length(qs) + nt - 1), qs)
Copy link
Sponsor Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this length(as) + nt - 1 I see that this is the old code as well. Are we implementing doubling? Maybe worth a comment?

Copy link
Sponsor Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a data race if you don't have a lock around the whole thing to make it valid

base/task.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/task.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/task.jl Outdated
end
if !isassigned(qs, tid)
@inbounds qs[tid] = StickyWorkqueue()
Copy link
Sponsor Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This also needs atomics now that it is no longer behind a lock

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now that I think about it. This is probably unsafe, we need to eagerly allocate the queues now, because there's no way to make sure that qs is still the same as workqueues here.

@gbaraldi gbaraldi closed this Aug 20, 2024
@vchuravy vchuravy deleted the gb/lockless-array branch August 20, 2024 14:14
@gbaraldi gbaraldi restored the gb/lockless-array branch August 20, 2024 19:04
@gbaraldi gbaraldi reopened this Aug 20, 2024
@gbaraldi
Copy link
Member Author

The change to Memory is probably still a net positive

@giordano
Copy link
Contributor

The title of the PR is now very inaccurate though

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants