-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 439
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
UCP/RKEY: Acquire context lock when calling ucp_rkey_pack_memh #10462
Draft
iyastreb
wants to merge
4
commits into
openucx:master
Choose a base branch
from
iyastreb:ucp/rkey-pack-memh-lock
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8c692ca
UCP/RKEY: Acquire context lock when calling ucp_rkey_pack_memh
iyastreb 8e5530a
UCP: Added new MT mode for context: UCP_MT_TYPE_WORKER_ASYNC
iyastreb e2918ca
UCP: Merge branch 'master' into ucp/rkey-pack-memh-lock
iyastreb 99ff8b0
UCP: Reverted previous fix
iyastreb File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it seems weird that context is pointing to async lock that belongs to a worker created by it, at least from object ownership/hierarchy perspective. also, what happens if there are multiple workers on the context?
I would expect the context to create the async context, and workers of the context to point to it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I agree, it's better if context owns this async, but let me precise this approach below
If there are multiple workers then context must be created with
mt_workers_shared
flag, which definescontext->mt_lock
. Once it's defined, thenucp_context_set_worker_async
has no any effect (just debug message)Well, multiple workers should not point to the same context-async object, each worker should own it's own async object. Otherwise it will be a single point of contention.
In fact we need this context-async object only in one case: when context is mt-single, but there is a SINGLE worker which is mt-shared (UCP_WORKER_FLAG_THREAD_MULTI). Only in this case this single worker points to a context async, right?
As we discussed before:
Do we agree on this?
So the context-async is gonna be used only in a case of a single MT worker, that's why I initially came up with this solution. But I will do like you suggested, it will not change much
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One side effect of this change is that we create context-async "just in case", because context doesn't know in advance whether context->async will be used later on by a single mt-worker. Not a big deal though, just to make it clear