RFR: 8338383: Implement JEP 491: Synchronize Virtual Threads without Pinning
David Holmes
dholmes at openjdk.org
Wed Nov 6 17:40:06 UTC 2024
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:02:02 GMT, Patricio Chilano Mateo <pchilanomate at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> That said such a scenario is not about concurrently pushing the same thread to the list from different threads. So I'm still somewhat confused about the concurrency control here. Specifically I can't see how the cmpxchg on line 2090 could fail.
>
> Let's say ThreadA owns monitorA and ThreadB owns monitorB, here is how the cmpxchg could fail:
>
> | ThreadA | ThreadB | ThreadC |
> | --------------------------------------| --------------------------------------| ---------------------------------------------|
> | | |VThreadMonitorEnter:fails to acquire monitorB |
> | | | VThreadMonitorEnter:adds to B's _cxq |
> | | ExitEpilog:picks ThreadC as succesor | |
> | | ExitEpilog:releases monitorB | |
> | | | VThreadMonitorEnter:acquires monitorB |
> | | | VThreadMonitorEnter:removes from B's _cxq |
> | | | continues execution in Java |
> | | |VThreadMonitorEnter:fails to acquire monitorA |
> | | | VThreadMonitorEnter:adds to A's _cxq |
> | ExitEpilog:picks ThreadC as succesor | | |
> | ExitEpilog:releases monitorA | | |
> | ExitEpilog:calls set_onWaitingList() | ExitEpilog:calls set_onWaitingList() | |
Thanks for that detailed explanation. It is a bit disconcerting that Thread C could leave a trace on monitors it acquired and released in the distant past. But that is an effect of waking the successor after releasing the monitor (which is generally a good thing for performance). We could potentially re-check the successor (which Thread C will clear) before doing the actual unpark (and set_onWaitingList) but that would just narrow the race window not close it.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1823394886
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list