* (not visible to lookups anymore) before the RCU read-side critical
* section held across removal ends. Furthermore, this ensures that
* the node with "removed" flag set is removed from the linked-list
- * before its memory is reclaimed. Only the thread which removal
- * successfully set the "removed" flag (with a cmpxchg) into a node's
- * next pointer is considered to have succeeded its removal (and thus
- * owns the node to reclaim). Because we garbage-collect starting from
- * an invariant node (the start-of-bucket bucket node) up to the
- * "removed" node (or find a reverse-hash that is higher), we are sure
- * that a successful traversal of the chain leads to a chain that is
- * present in the linked-list (the start node is never removed) and
- * that is does not contain the "removed" node anymore, even if
- * concurrent delete/add operations are changing the structure of the
- * list concurrently.
- * - The add operation performs gargage collection of buckets if it
+ * before its memory is reclaimed. After setting the "removal" flag,
+ * only the thread which removal is the first to set the "removal
+ * owner" flag (with an xchg) into a node's next pointer is considered
+ * to have succeeded its removal (and thus owns the node to reclaim).
+ * Because we garbage-collect starting from an invariant node (the
+ * start-of-bucket bucket node) up to the "removed" node (or find a
+ * reverse-hash that is higher), we are sure that a successful
+ * traversal of the chain leads to a chain that is present in the
+ * linked-list (the start node is never removed) and that is does not
+ * contain the "removed" node anymore, even if concurrent delete/add
+ * operations are changing the structure of the list concurrently.
+ * - The add operation performs garbage collection of buckets if it
* encounters nodes with removed flag set in the bucket where it wants
* to add its new node. This ensures lock-freedom of add operation by
* helping the remover unlink nodes from the list rather than to wait
* hash table nodes. These tables are invariant after they are
* populated into the hash table.
*
+ * Ordering Guarantees:
+ *
+ * To discuss these guarantees, we first define "read" operation as any
+ * of the the basic cds_lfht_lookup, cds_lfht_next_duplicate,
+ * cds_lfht_first, cds_lfht_next operation, as well as
+ * cds_lfht_add_unique (failure).
+ *
+ * We define "read traversal" operation as any of the following
+ * group of operations
+ * - cds_lfht_lookup followed by iteration with cds_lfht_next_duplicate
+ * (and/or cds_lfht_next, although less common).
+ * - cds_lfht_add_unique (failure) followed by iteration with
+ * cds_lfht_next_duplicate (and/or cds_lfht_next, although less
+ * common).
+ * - cds_lfht_first followed iteration with cds_lfht_next (and/or
+ * cds_lfht_next_duplicate, although less common).
+ *
+ * We define "write" operations as any of cds_lfht_add,
+ * cds_lfht_add_unique (success), cds_lfht_add_replace, cds_lfht_del.
+ *
+ * When cds_lfht_add_unique succeeds (returns the node passed as
+ * parameter), it acts as a "write" operation. When cds_lfht_add_unique
+ * fails (returns a node different from the one passed as parameter), it
+ * acts as a "read" operation. A cds_lfht_add_unique failure is a
+ * cds_lfht_lookup "read" operation, therefore, any ordering guarantee
+ * referring to "lookup" imply any of "lookup" or cds_lfht_add_unique
+ * (failure).
+ *
+ * We define "prior" and "later" node as nodes observable by reads and
+ * read traversals respectively before and after a write or sequence of
+ * write operations.
+ *
+ * Hash-table operations are often cascaded, for example, the pointer
+ * returned by a cds_lfht_lookup() might be passed to a cds_lfht_next(),
+ * whose return value might in turn be passed to another hash-table
+ * operation. This entire cascaded series of operations must be enclosed
+ * by a pair of matching rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
+ * operations.
+ *
+ * The following ordering guarantees are offered by this hash table:
+ *
+ * A.1) "read" after "write": if there is ordering between a write and a
+ * later read, then the read is guaranteed to see the write or some
+ * later write.
+ * A.2) "read traversal" after "write": given that there is dependency
+ * ordering between reads in a "read traversal", if there is
+ * ordering between a write and the first read of the traversal,
+ * then the "read traversal" is guaranteed to see the write or
+ * some later write.
+ * B.1) "write" after "read": if there is ordering between a read and a
+ * later write, then the read will never see the write.
+ * B.2) "write" after "read traversal": given that there is dependency
+ * ordering between reads in a "read traversal", if there is
+ * ordering between the last read of the traversal and a later
+ * write, then the "read traversal" will never see the write.
+ * C) "write" while "read traversal": if a write occurs during a "read
+ * traversal", the traversal may, or may not, see the write.
+ * D.1) "write" after "write": if there is ordering between a write and
+ * a later write, then the later write is guaranteed to see the
+ * effects of the first write.
+ * D.2) Concurrent "write" pairs: The system will assign an arbitrary
+ * order to any pair of concurrent conflicting writes.
+ * Non-conflicting writes (for example, to different keys) are
+ * unordered.
+ * E) If a grace period separates a "del" or "replace" operation
+ * and a subsequent operation, then that subsequent operation is
+ * guaranteed not to see the removed item.
+ * F) Uniqueness guarantee: given a hash table that does not contain
+ * duplicate items for a given key, there will only be one item in
+ * the hash table after an arbitrary sequence of add_unique and/or
+ * add_replace operations. Note, however, that a pair of
+ * concurrent read operations might well access two different items
+ * with that key.
+ * G.1) If a pair of lookups for a given key are ordered (e.g. by a
+ * memory barrier), then the second lookup will return the same
+ * node as the previous lookup, or some later node.
+ * G.2) A "read traversal" that starts after the end of a prior "read
+ * traversal" (ordered by memory barriers) is guaranteed to see the
+ * same nodes as the previous traversal, or some later nodes.
+ * G.3) Concurrent "read" pairs: concurrent reads are unordered. For
+ * example, if a pair of reads to the same key run concurrently
+ * with an insertion of that same key, the reads remain unordered
+ * regardless of their return values. In other words, you cannot
+ * rely on the values returned by the reads to deduce ordering.
+ *
+ * Progress guarantees:
+ *
+ * * Reads are wait-free. These operations always move forward in the
+ * hash table linked list, and this list has no loop.
+ * * Writes are lock-free. Any retry loop performed by a write operation
+ * is triggered by progress made within another update operation.
+ *
* Bucket node tables:
*
* hash table hash table the last all bucket node tables
*/
#define _LGPL_SOURCE
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>
+#include <sched.h>
#include "config.h"
#include <urcu.h>
return;
}
work = malloc(sizeof(*work));
+ if (work == NULL) {
+ dbg_printf("error allocating resize work, bailing out\n");
+ uatomic_dec(&ht->in_progress_resize);
+ return;
+ }
work->ht = ht;
ht->flavor->update_call_rcu(&work->head, do_resize_cb);
CMM_STORE_SHARED(ht->resize_initiated, 1);
projects / urcu.git / blobdiff