D2 weak references

[Leandro Lucarella]

Frits van Bommel, el 22 de abril a las 23:39 me escribiste:
> >>>I think this approach is both simple and efficient, it doesn't have races
> >>>at all (unless I'm missing something, of course). The only problem is it's
> >>>too tied to the current GC implementation. But I think any weak ref
> >>>implementation will, so it looks like weak ref really belong to the GC.
> >>
> >>I think you're missing something. Consider this sequence of events:
> >>- Object A is collected by the GC. (And its mark bit M is cleared)
> >>- Object B is allocated, and gets the memory formerly used by object A. Mark bit M is set.
> >>- A weak reference to A gets used; it checks mark bit M, which is set...
> >>
> >>In other words, the "this object was collected" state needs to be
> >>stored in the weak reference, not in the object that got collected (or
> >>anything tied to its memory location) because that memory may get
> >>reused.
> >
> >That's where finalizers come in. They can mark the weak ref as invalid
> >so that you don't care what was returned. In my (recent?) pseudo code,
> >the weak ref was decoded, the mark bit was checked, and then the weak
> >ref was decoded again. The final decoding is to solve the race with the
> >finalizer.
> 
> Will this work if B was allocated in another thread, right after it gets
> resumed (i.e. possibly before the finalizer has a chance to run)?
> 
> ... oh, maybe the GC lock gets held even after other threads get
> resumed, so the allocation will wait for finalizers to run? (just
> thought of that)

That's exactly what happens. So I'm not seeing any flaws so far with my
proposal.

> >Even with such precautions, a lock free implementation has one more
> >problem: what happens if the memory block was released to the os?
> >That's a segfault :( if other data is checked to avoid such situations,
> >that's likely where gc locks come into the picture... I'm pretty sure
> >Sean said querying the attribute bits requires a lock. It may be for
> >this reason. I still have to look at the code though...
> 
> You mean it would segfault on checking the mark bit? Can't the GC just
> say the mark bit was not set for any pointer not pointing into
> a currently-allocated pool?  But yeah, checking if that address is part
> of an allocated pool may require holding the GC lock...

In the patch I posted this is already happening. The mark bit is returned
as part of the BlkAttr belonging to a memory block. If the pointer passed
to gc_getAttr() (or gc_query()) don't point to a GC allocated memory
block, 0 is returned.

I any case, I can't see how that could happen if there are still
notifications before freeing the memory block in the sweep phase.

The sequence is like this:

0) All live cells has the mark bit set
1) Acquire the GC lock
2) Stop the world
3) Clear mark bits
4) Mark
5) Start the world
6) Sweep (calling finalizing notification callbacks)
7) Release the GC lock

Then, you are guaranteed to access to valid memory (mark bit or even
the entire memory block) until the notification comes. When the weak
reference receive the notification it invalidates the reference and don't
rely anymore in the mark bit.

But I just found a flaw in my patch (not the proposal), right now, as you
say, the gc_query() and gc_getAttr() functions are acquiring the GC lock.
Some non-locking interface should be exposed that calls to queryNoSync()
and getAttrNoSync(). It should be safe for this limited usage as long as
there are not concurrent calls to setAttr()/clrAttr() to that memory
block (I think).

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of doing a wash, I just keep buying underwear. My goal is to have over
360 pair. That way I only have to do wash once a year.
	-- George Constanza