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

UCX osc: properly release exclusive lock to avoid lockup #6933

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2019

Conversation

devreal
Copy link
Contributor

@devreal devreal commented Aug 27, 2019

Fixes #6931

Signed-off-by: Joseph Schuchart schuchart@hlrs.de

int ret = OMPI_SUCCESS;

ret = opal_common_ucx_wpmem_fetch(module->state_mem,
UCP_ATOMIC_FETCH_OP_SWAP, TARGET_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can you please elaborate a bit about the hang? If we set TARGET_LOCK_UNLOCKED (which is zero), start_shared should succeed, because result_value is supposed to be less than TARGET_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Assume that process 0 holds an exclusive lock and process 1 tries to acquire a shared lock. Process 1 will retrieve the lock value (which is TARGET_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE) and add 1 it, making it TARGET_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE + 1. In the meantime, however, process 0 releases the lock by resetting it to TARGET_LOCK_UNLOCKED (which is 0). Since Process 1 has seen the lock as being taken exclusively, it will subtract 1 again, leading to a value of -1 in the lock variable (the lock is thus out of sync).

The next time Process 1 tries to take a shared lock, it will get the value -1 in a variable of type uint64_t, which is definitely >=TARGET_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE.

I realized, though, the my patch used -((int64_t)TARGET_LOCK_UNLOCKED) instead of -((int64_t)TARGET_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE). That should be fixed now. Sorry if that led to confusion.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see now, thanks

Signed-off-by: Joseph Schuchart <schuchart@hlrs.de>
@devreal devreal force-pushed the osc-ucx-excl-lock branch from 08cb638 to a5cc380 Compare August 27, 2019 21:01
@artpol84
Copy link
Contributor

@hoopoepg @brminich, please keep me in the loop on all OSC issues.

@artpol84
Copy link
Contributor

@devreal thanks for the fix.
@janjust FYI

@awlauria
Copy link
Contributor

awlauria commented Oct 25, 2019

I notice this was cherry-picked to the 3.1.x branch. Do we want this for the 4.0 branches?

Edit: I see it was merged to 4.0.x a while ago.

@awlauria awlauria merged commit ecd990a into open-mpi:master Oct 25, 2019
@awlauria
Copy link
Contributor

4.0.x: #6934

@devreal devreal deleted the osc-ucx-excl-lock branch October 3, 2022 15:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

UCX osc: mixing exclusive and shared locks leads to lockup
4 participants