Does it only protect against asynchronous updates or does it also cause other access to the variable to wait for the update? I'm using the same model for training and inference at the same time and want to make sure that inference is always done on a consistent model.
Passing use_locking=True when creating a TensorFlow optimizer, or a variable assignment op, causes a lock to be acquired around the relevant updates to the variable. Other optimizers/assignments on the same variable also created with use_locking=True will be serialized.
However, there are two caveats that you should bear in mind when using this option:
Reads to the variables are not performed under the lock, so it is possible to see intermediate states and partially-applied updates. Serializing reads requires additional coordination, such as that provided by tf.train.SyncReplicasOptimizer.
Writes (optimizers/assignments) to the same variable with use_locking=False are still possible, and will not acquire the lock. The programmer is responsible for ensuring that these writes do not occur.
Related
I am creating a webserver using tokio. Whenever a client connection comes in, a green thread is created via tokio::spawn.
The main function of my web server is proxy. Target server information for proxy is stored as a global variable, and for proxy, all tasks must access the data. Since there are multiple target servers, they must be selected by round robin. So the global variable (struct) must have information of the recently selected server(by index).
Concurrency problems occur because shared information can be read/written by multiple tasks at the same time.
According to the docs, there seems to be a way to use Mutex and Arc or a way to use channel to solve this.
I'm curious which one you usually prefer, or if there is another way to solve the problem.
If it's shared data, you generally do want Arc, or you can leak a box to get a 'static reference (assuming that the data is going to exist until the program exits), or you can use a global variable (though global variables tends to impede testability and should generally be considered an anti-pattern).
As far as what goes in the Arc/Box/global, that depends on what your data's access pattern will be. If you will often read but rarely write, then Tokio's RwLock is probably what you want; if you're going to be updating the data every time you read it, then use Tokio's Mutex instead.
Channels make the most sense when you have separate parts of the program with separate responsibilities. It doesn't work as well to update multiple workers with the same changes to data, because then you get into message ordering problems that can result in each worker's state disagreeing about something. (You get many of the problems of a distributed system without any of the benefits.)
Channels can work if there is a single entity responsible for maintaining the data, but at that point there isn't much benefit over using some kind of mutual exclusion mechanism; it winds up being the same thing with extra steps.
In OpenModelcia, do all variables of a model save in the ring buffer only when the delay operator is used, or is it done automatically whether we use delay or not? and if so, can we access the ring buffer from an external function C?
Since Modelica models can fail at any point in time all variables are saved in some sort of backup, for the C runtime in some buffers in the so-called thread data. And in some cases the OpenModelica compiler is able to revert the last step and try again, but slightly different.
For example an assert is throwing an error, because some variable has become negative but wasn't allowed to, so the compiler tries again with a smaller step size.
This backup is done independent of the presence of the delay operator and always done.
For the delay operator a different data structure is used, which is the RINGBUFFER you are probably referring to. It is only allocated if there are delay operators in the Modelica model.
There are no API functions provided to access (this) internal data of a OpenModelica simulation. So accessing the ring buffer would only be possible if you write such a function yourself, which is of course possible.
Question would be what you are trying to accomplish in the first place.
Wanting to be sure we're using the correct synchronization (and no more than necessary) when writing threadsafe code in JRuby; specifically, in a Puma instantiated Rails app.
UPDATE: Extensively re-edited this question, to be very clear and use latest code we are implementing. This code uses the atomic gem written by #headius (Charles Nutter) for JRuby, but not sure it is totally necessary, or in which ways it's necessary, for what we're trying to do here.
Here's what we've got, is this overkill (meaning, are we over/uber-engineering this), or perhaps incorrect?
ourgem.rb:
require 'atomic' # gem from #headius
SUPPORTED_SERVICES = %w(serviceABC anotherSvc andSoOnSvc).freeze
module Foo
def self.included(cls)
cls.extend(ClassMethods)
cls.send :__setup
end
module ClassMethods
def get(service_name, method_name, *args)
__cached_client(service_name).send(method_name.to_sym, *args)
# we also capture exceptions here, but leaving those out for brevity
end
private
def __client(service_name)
# obtain and return a client handle for the given service_name
# we definitely want to cache the value returned from this method
# **AND**
# it is a requirement that this method ONLY be called *once PER service_name*.
end
def __cached_client(service_name)
##_clients.value[service_name]
end
def __setup
##_clients = Atomic.new({})
##_clients.update do |current_service|
SUPPORTED_SERVICES.inject(Atomic.new({}).value) do |memo, service_name|
if current_services[service_name]
current_services[service_name]
else
memo.merge({service_name => __client(service_name)})
end
end
end
end
end
end
client.rb:
require 'ourgem'
class GetStuffFromServiceABC
include Foo
def self.get_some_stuff
result = get('serviceABC', 'method_bar', 'arg1', 'arg2', 'arg3')
puts result
end
end
Summary of the above: we have ##_clients (a mutable class variable holding a Hash of clients) which we only want to populate ONCE for all available services, which are keyed on service_name.
Since the hash is in a class variable (and hence threadsafe?), are we guaranteed that the call to __client will not get run more than once per service name (even if Puma is instantiating multiple threads with this class to service all the requests from different users)? If the class variable is threadsafe (in that way), then perhaps the Atomic.new({}) is unnecessary?
Also, should we be using an Atomic.new(ThreadSafe::Hash) instead? Or again, is that not necessary?
If not (meaning: you think we do need the Atomic.news at least, and perhaps also the ThreadSafe::Hash), then why couldn't a second (or third, etc.) thread interrupt between the Atomic.new(nil) and the ##_clients.update do ... meaning the Atomic.news from EACH thread will EACH create two (separate) objects?
Thanks for any thread-safety advice, we don't see any questions on SO that directly address this issue.
Just a friendly piece of advice, before I attempt to tackle the issues you raise here:
This question, and the accompanying code, strongly suggests that you don't (yet) have a solid grasp of the issues involved in writing multi-threaded code. I encourage you to think twice before deciding to write a multi-threaded app for production use. Why do you actually want to use Puma? Is it for performance? Will your app handle many long-running, I/O-bound requests (like uploading/downloading large files) at the same time? Or (like many apps) will it primarily handle short, CPU-bound requests?
If the answer is "short/CPU-bound", then you have little to gain from using Puma. Multiple single-threaded server processes would be better. Memory consumption will be higher, but you will keep your sanity. Writing correct multi-threaded code is devilishly hard, and even experts make mistakes. If your business success, job security, etc. depends on that multi-threaded code working and working right, you are going to cause yourself a lot of unnecessary pain and mental anguish.
That aside, let me try to unravel some of the issues raised in your question. There is so much to say that it's hard to know where to start. You may want to pour yourself a cold or hot beverage of your choice before sitting down to read this treatise:
When you talk about writing "thread-safe" code, you need to be clear about what you mean. In most cases, "thread-safe" code means code which doesn't concurrently modify mutable data in a way which could cause data corruption. (What a mouthful!) That could mean that the code doesn't allow concurrent modification of mutable data at all (using locks), or that it does allow concurrent modification, but makes sure that it doesn't corrupt data (probably using atomic operations and a touch of black magic).
Note that when your threads are only reading data, not modifying it, or when working with shared stateless objects, there is no question of "thread safety".
Another definition of "thread-safe", which probably applies better to your situation, has to do with operations which affect the outside world (basically I/O). You may want some operations to only happen once, or to happen in a specific order. If the code which performs those operations runs on multiple threads, they could happen more times than desired, or in a different order than desired, unless you do something to prevent that.
It appears that your __setup method is only called when ourgem.rb is first loaded. As far as I know, even if multiple threads require the same file at the same time, MRI will only ever let a single thread load the file. I don't know whether JRuby is the same. But in any case, if your source files are being loaded more than once, that is symptomatic of a deeper problem. They should only be loaded once, on a single thread. If your app handles requests on multiple threads, those threads should be started up after the application has loaded, not before. This is the only sane way to do things.
Assuming that everything is sane, ourgem.rb will be loaded using a single thread. That means __setup will only ever be called by a single thread. In that case, there is no question of thread safety at all to worry about (as far as initialization of your "client cache" goes).
Even if __setup was to be called concurrently by multiple threads, your atomic code won't do what you think it does. First of all, you use Atomic.new({}).value. This wraps a Hash in an atomic reference, then unwraps it so you just get back the Hash. It's a no-op. You could just write {} instead.
Second, your Atomic#update call will not prevent the initialization code from running more than once. To understand this, you need to know what Atomic actually does.
Let me pull out the old, tired "increment a shared counter" example. Imagine the following code is running on 2 threads:
i += 1
We all know what can go wrong here. You may end up with the following sequence of events:
Thread A reads i and increments it.
Thread B reads i and increments it.
Thread A writes its incremented value back to i.
Thread B writes its incremented value back to i.
So we lose an update, right? But what if we store the counter value in an atomic reference, and use Atomic#update? Then it would be like this:
Thread A reads i and increments it.
Thread B reads i and increments it.
Thread A tries to write its incremented value back to i, and succeeds.
Thread B tries to write its incremented value back to i, and fails, because the value has already changed.
Thread B reads i again and increments it.
Thread B tries to write its incremented value back to i again, and succeeds this time.
Do you get the idea? Atomic never stops 2 threads from running the same code at the same time. What it does do, is force some threads to retry the #update block when necessary, to avoid lost updates.
If your goal is to ensure that your initialization code will only ever run once, using Atomic is a very inappropriate choice. If anything, it could make it run more times, rather than less (due to retries).
So, that is that. But if you're still with me here, I am actually more concerned about whether your "client" objects are themselves thread-safe. Do they have any mutable state? Since you are caching them, it seems that initializing them must be slow. Be that as it may, if you use locks to make them thread-safe, you may not be gaining anything from caching and sharing them between threads. Your "multi-threaded" server may be reduced to what is effectively an unnecessarily complicated, single-threaded server.
If the client objects have no mutable state, good for you. You can be "free and easy" and share them between threads with no problems. If they do have mutable state, but initializing them is slow, then I would recommend caching one object per thread, so they are never shared. Thread[] is your friend there.
In complier.h, there is a macro define as below:
# define __cond_lock(x,c) ((c) ? ({ __acquire(x); 1; }) : 0)
But here I have a question, that is, where there is a __cond_lock definition, but does not define the corresponding __cond_unlock, then the variable on the release, how to keep consistent between __cond_lock and __cond_unlock?
And I checked the definition of function spin_trylock (), and it is used __cond_lock, but which also used a _spin_trylock function.in _spin_trylock function, after a few calls, it will use to __acquire function in this case, the equivalent of an operation, it carried out two calculations would lead Sparse detection warning message appears, after I wrote the code for an experiment to test my judgment, is indeed a warning message will appear, if I wrote it twice unlock instruction, there is no alarm information, but this is inconsistent as program running.
Protecting critical sections using locking is up to the programmer. That means, if you hold a lock to protect a critical reason, you've must have to release the lock when you're finished.
There are various types of locking primitives inside Linux kernel like. spinlock(), spinlock_irq(), spin_trylock(). They have their own purposes. Now, spin_trylock() using __cond_lock inside of it, it's because to make sure, whether that particular lock is available for locking or it's been already taken. Take a look at few examples of how spin_trylock or __cond_lock is being used. For ex. at kernel/sched/fair.c::rebalance_domain (https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/sched/fair.c?id=d8dfad3876e4386666b759da3c833d62fb8b2267#n5574) see how the balancing is used, it's been using spin_trylock() to hold the lock and while releasing doing it conditionally. Another example could be found at kernel/posix-timers.c, lock_timer() macro. If you closely look at the uses of lock_timer() you'll find how __cond_lock is being used inside kernel and hopefully your confusion will disappear.
In other words, __cond_lock is used to hold a lock conditionally and not being used directly. It's possible to check a particular lock before releasing the lock and this what has been done so far.
I am using shared variables on perl with use threads::shared.
That variables can we modified only from single thread, all other threads are only 'reading' that variables.
Is it required in the 'reading' threads to lock
{
lock $shared_var;
if ($shared_var > 0) .... ;
}
?
isn't it safe to simple verification without locking (in the 'reading' thread!), like
if ($shared_var > 0) ....
?
Locking is not required to maintain internal integrity when setting or fetching a scalar.
Whether it's needed or not in your particular case depends on the needs of the reader, the other readers and the writers. It rarely makes sense not to lock, but you haven't provided enough details for us to determine what your needs are.
For example, it might not be acceptable to use an old value after the writer has updated the shared variable. For starters, this can lead to a situation where one thread is still using the old value while the another thread is using the new value, a situation that can be undesirable if those two threads interact.
It depends on whether it's meaningful to test the condition just at some point in time or other. The problem however is that in a vast majority of cases, that Boolean test means other things, which might have already changed by the time you're done reading the condition that says it represents a previous state.
Think about it. If it's an insignificant test, then it means little--and you have to question why you are making it. If it's a significant test, then it is telltale of a coherent state that may or may not exist anymore--you won't know for sure, unless you lock it.
A lot of times, say in real-time reporting, you don't really care which snapshot the database hands you, you just want a relatively current one. But, as part of its transaction logic, it keeps a complete picture of how things are prior to a commit. I don't think you're likely to find this in code, where the current state is the current state--and even a state of being in a provisional state is a definite state.
I guess one of the times this can be different is a cyclical access of a queue. If one consumer doesn't get the head record this time around, then one of them will the next time around. You can probably save some processing time, asynchronously accessing the queue counter. But here's a case where it means little in context of just one iteration.
In the case above, you would just want to put some locked-level instructions afterward that expected that the queue might actually be empty even if your test suggested it had data. So, if it is just a preliminary test, you would have to have logic that treated the test as unreliable as it actually is.