Seeking articles on shared memory locking issues

Question

I'm reviewing some code and feel suspicious of the technique being used.

In a linux environment, there are two processes that attach multiple shared memory segments. The first process periodically loads a new set of files to be shared, and writes the shared memory id (shmid) into a location in the "master" shared memory segment. The second process continually reads this "master" location and uses the shmid to attach the other shared segments.

On a multi-cpu host, it seems to me it might be implementation dependent as to what happens if one process tries to read the memory while it's being written by the other. But perhaps hardware-level bus locking prevents mangled bits on the wire? It wouldn't matter if the reading process got a very-soon-to-be-changed value, it would only matter if the read was corrupted to something that was neither the old value nor the new value. This is an edge case: only 32 bits are being written and read.

Googling for shmat stuff hasn't led me to anything that's definitive in this area.

I suspect strongly it's not safe or sane, and what I'd really like is some pointers to articles that describe the problems in detail.

Answer 1

It is legal -- as in the OS won't stop you from doing it.

But is it smart? No, you should have some type of synchronization.

There wouldn't be "mangled bits on the wire". They will come out either as ones or zeros. But there's nothing to say that all your bits will be written out before another process tries to read them. And there are NO guarantees on how fast they'll be written vs how fast they'll be read.

You should always assume there is absolutely NO relationship between the actions of 2 processes (or threads for that matter).

Hardware level bus locking does not happen unless you get it right. It can be harder then expected to make your compiler / library / os / cpu get it right. Synchronization primitives are written to makes sure it happens right.

Locking will make it safe, and it's not that hard to do. So just do it.

---

@unknown - The question has changed somewhat since my answer was posted. However, the behavior you describe is defiantly platform (hardware, os, library and compiler) dependent.

Without giving the compiler specific instructions, you are actually not guaranteed to have 32 bits written out in one shot. Imagine a situation where the 32 bit word is not aligned on a word boundary. This unaligned access is acceptable on x86, and in the case of the x68, the access is turned into a series of aligned accesses by the cpu.

An interrupt can occurs between those operations. If a context switch happens in the middle, some of the bits are written, some aren't. Bang, You're Dead.

Also, lets think about 16 bit cpus or 64 bit cpus. Both of which are still popular and don't necessarily work the way you think.

So, actually you can have a situation where "some other cpu-core picks up a word sized value 1/2 written to". You write you code as if this type of thing is expected to happen if you are not using synchronization.

Now, there are ways to preform your writes to make sure that you get a whole word written out. Those methods fall under the category of synchronization, and creating synchronization primitives is the type of thing that's best left to the library, compiler, os, and hardware designers. Especially if you are interested in portability (which you should be, even if you never port your code)

Answer 2

The problem's actually worse than some of the people have discussed. Zifre is right that on current x86 CPUs memory writes are atomic, but that is rapidly ceasing to be the case - memory writes are only atomic for a single core - other cores may not see the writes in the same order.

In other words if you do

a = 1;
b = 2;

on CPU 2 you might see location b modified before location 'a' is. Also if you're writing a value that's larger than the native word size (32 bits on an x32 processor) the writes are not atomic - so the high 32 bits of a 64 bit write will hit the bus at a different time from the low 32 bits of the write. This can complicate things immensely.

Use a memory barrier and you'll be ok.

Answer 3

You need locking somewhere. If not at the code level, then at the hardware memory cache and bus.

You are probably OK on a post-PentiumPro Intel CPU. From what I just read, Intel made their later CPUs essentially ignore the LOCK prefix on machine code. Instead the cache coherency protocols make sure that the data is consistent between all CPUs. So if the code writes data that doesn't cross a cache-line boundary, it will work. The order of memory writes that cross cache-lines isn't guaranteed, so multi-word writes are risky.

If you are using anything other than x86 or x86_64 then you are not OK. Many non-Intel CPUs (and perhaps Intel Itanium) gain performance by using explicit cache coherency machine commands, and if you do not use them (via custom ASM code, compiler intrinsics, or libraries) then writes to memory via cache are not guaranteed to ever become visible to another CPU or to occur in any particular order.

So just because something works on your Core2 system doesn't mean that your code is correct. If you want to check portability, try your code also on other SMP architectures like PPC (an older MacPro or a Cell blade) or an Itanium or an IBM Power or ARM. The Alpha was a great CPU for revealing bad SMP code, but I doubt you can find one.

Answer 4

Two processes, two threads, two cpus, two cores all require special attention when sharing data through memory.

This IBM article provides an excellent overview of your options.

Anatomy of Linux synchronization methods Kernel atomics, spinlocks, and mutexes by M. Tim Jones (mtj@mtjones.com), Consultant Engineer, Emulex

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-synchronization.html

Answer 5

I actually believe this should be completely safe (but is depends on the exact implementation). Assuming the "master" segment is basically an array, as long as the shmid can be written atomically (if it's 32 bits then probably okay), and the second process is just reading, you should be okay. Locking is only needed when both processes are writing, or the values being written cannot be written atomically. You will never get a corrupted (half written values). Of course, there may be some strange architectures that can't handle this, but on x86/x64 it should be okay (and probably also ARM, PowerPC, and other common architectures).

Answer 6

Read Memory Ordering in Modern Microprocessors, Part I and Part II

They give the background to why this is theoretically unsafe.

Here's a potential race:

• Process A (on CPU core A) writes to a new shared memory region
• Process A puts that shared memory ID into a shared 32-bit variable (that is 32-bit aligned - any compiler will try to align like this if you let it).
• Process B (on CPU core B) reads the variable. Assuming 32-bit size and 32-bit alignment, it shouldn't get garbage in practise.
• Process B tries to read from the shared memory region. Now, there is no guarantee that it'll see the data A wrote, because you missed out the memory barrier. (In practise, there probably happened to be memory barriers on CPU B in the library code that maps the shared memory segment; the problem is that process A didn't use a memory barrier).

Also, it's not clear how you can safely free the shared memory region with this design.

With the latest kernel and libc, you can put a pthreads mutex into a shared memory region. (This does need a recent version with NPTL - I'm using Debian 5.0 "lenny" and it works fine). A simple lock around the shared variable would mean you don't have to worry about arcane memory barrier issues.

Answer 7

I can't believe you're asking this. NO it's not safe necessarily. At the very least, this will depend on whether the compiler produces code that will atomically set the shared memory location when you set the shmid.

Now, I don't know Linux, but I suspect that a shmid is 16 to 64 bits. That means it's at least possible that all platforms would have some instruction that could write this value atomically. But you can't depend on the compiler doing this without being asked somehow.

Details of memory implementation are among the most platform-specific things there are!

BTW, it may not matter in your case, but in general, you have to worry about locking, even on a single CPU system. In general, some device could write to the shared memory.

Answer 8

I agree that it might work - so it might be safe, but not sane. The main question is if this low-level sharing is really needed - I am not an expert on Linux, but I would consider to use for instance a FIFO queue for the master shared memory segment, so that the OS does the locking work for you. Consumer/producers usually need queues for synchronization anyway.

Answer 9

Legal? I suppose. Depends on your "jurisdiction". Safe and sane? Almost certainly not.

Edit: I'll update this with more information.

You might want to take a look at this Wikipedia page; particularly the section on "Coordinating access to resources". In particular, the Wikipedia discussion essentially describes a confidence failure; non-locked access to shared resources can, even for atomic resources, cause a misreporting / misrepresentation of the confidence that an action was done. Essentially, in the time period between checking to see whether or not it CAN modify the resource, the resource gets externally modified, and therefore, the confidence inherent in the conditional check is busted.

Answer 10

I don't believe anybody here has discussed how much of an impact lock contention can have over the bus, especially on bus bandwith constrained systems.

Here is an article about this issue in some depth, they discuss some alternative schedualing algorythems which reduse the overall demand on exclusive access through the bus. Which increases total throughput in some cases over 60% than a naieve scheduler (when considering the cost of an explicit lock prefix instruction or implicit xchg cmpx..). The paper is not the most recent work and not much in the way of real code (dang academic's) but it worth the read and consideration for this problem.

More recent CPU ABI's provide alternative operations than simple lock whatever.

Jeffr, from FreeBSD (author of many internal kernel components), discusses monitor and mwait, 2 instructions added for SSE3, where in a simple test case identified an improvement of 20%. He later postulates;

So this is now the first stage in the adaptive algorithm, we spin a while, then sleep at a high power state, and then sleep at a low power state depending on load.

...

In most cases we're still idling in hlt as well, so there should be no negative effect on power. In fact, it wastes a lot of time and energy to enter and exit the idle states so it might improve power under load by reducing the total cpu time required.

I wonder what would be the effect of using pause instead of hlt.

From Intel's TBB;

        ALIGN 8
        PUBLIC __TBB_machine_pause
__TBB_machine_pause:
L1:
        dw 090f3H; pause
        add ecx,-1
        jne L1
        ret
end

Art of Assembly also uses syncronization w/o the use of lock prefix or xchg. I haven't read that book in a while and won't speak directly to it's applicability in a user-land protected mode SMP context, but it's worth a look.

Good luck!

Answer 11

If the shmid has some type other than volatile sig_atomic_t then you can be pretty sure that separate threads will get in trouble even on the very same CPU. If the type is volatile sig_atomic_t then you can't be quite as sure, but you still might get lucky because multithreading can do more interleaving than signals can do.

If the shmid crosses cache lines (partly in one cache line and partly in another) then while the writing cpu is writing you sure find a reading cpu reading part of the new value and part of the old value.

This is exactly why instructions like "compare and swap" were invented.

Answer 12

Sounds like you need a Reader-Writer Lock : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readers-writer_lock.

Answer 13

The answer is - it's absolutely safe to do reads and writes simultaneously.

It is clear that the shm mechanism provides bare-bones tools for the user. All access control must be taken care of by the programmer. Locking and synchronization is being kindly provided by the kernel, this means the user have less worries about race conditions. Note that this model provides only a symmetric way of sharing data between processes. If a process wishes to notify another process that new data has been inserted to the shared memory, it will have to use signals, message queues, pipes, sockets, or other types of IPC.

From Shared Memory in Linux article.

The latest Linux shm implementation just uses copy_to_user and copy_from_user calls, which are synchronised with memory bus internally.