-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.5k
Fix a deadlock issue with emscripten_lock_async_acquire() #25670
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
Merged
+41
−11
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | ||
| #include <emscripten/wasm_worker.h> | ||
| #include <emscripten/threading.h> | ||
| #include <stdio.h> | ||
|
|
||
| emscripten_lock_t lock = EMSCRIPTEN_LOCK_T_STATIC_INITIALIZER; | ||
|
|
||
| void on_acquire(volatile void* address, uint32_t value, | ||
| ATOMICS_WAIT_RESULT_T waitResult, void* userData) { | ||
| printf("on_acquire: releasing lock.\n"); | ||
| emscripten_lock_release(&lock); | ||
| printf("on_acquire: released lock.\n"); | ||
| exit(0); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| int main() { | ||
| printf("main: async acquiring lock.\n"); | ||
| emscripten_lock_async_acquire(&lock, on_acquire, 0, 100); | ||
| printf("main: busy-spin acquiring lock.\n"); | ||
| emscripten_lock_busyspin_waitinf_acquire(&lock); | ||
| printf("main: lock acquired.\n"); | ||
| emscripten_lock_release(&lock); | ||
| printf("main: lock released.\n"); | ||
| emscripten_exit_with_live_runtime(); | ||
| return 1; | ||
| } |
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.
As discussed in b25abd5#r168975511
I prefer this to run as fast as possible if possible. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the
emscripten_lock_async_acquireto run directly with the things that it entails if the lock is free.But if we are to do this, would
queueMicrotaskwork here instead? That would avoid things like renders to run before we try to acquire the lock.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 might be possible, although the consensus here is that a microtask should be a short-lived task. We have no possibility to state the semantics on behalf of the user. If this was a new API, we could freely say that should be the model - but since this is an already shipped API, we cannot change/impose semantics on existing users.
I think it would be best to compose using the existing functions. For example,
or
Would give a convenient way to get the fast access path synchronously.
Performance here should be optimal whenever there is no long-lived contention. And in the case there is > 0.5msec contention, latency will be on the slow path in any case since
emscripten_lock_async_acquire()will yield to the event loop (the fact that it performs a single extra CAS will not be observable.. e.g.emscripten_lock_busyspin_wait_acquire()will have performed millions of CASes already, one more won't matter)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.
Do you have any links to these discussions?
The Task vs Microtask has no semantic difference in "size", just when they are expected to run.
The thing we need to ask ourself is if we want the
Atomic.awaitSyncto be able to happen before or after a page render if it is queued (or other similar tasks). Eg. should we always yield to the eventloop when we want to aquire the lock async. I would argue to only yield if the lock is blocking.But in the end, I don't think this matters a lot compared to the big difference of removing the yielding in the critical section which this PR fixes 👍
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
This was from
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/queueMicrotask and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTML_DOM_API/Microtask_guide : "The microtask is a short function which will run after ... "
I understand you're in the mindset of designing what would be the best API. And I agree with that, though given this is an already shipped API, that would change the semantics. For example, if user writes
Should the async timeout callback trigger first? Or the async lock acquire trigger first?
Currently the computation model is consistent to always trigger the timeout first. Using a microtask would change the async lock callback to trigger either before or after the timeout depending on whether there was contention from other threads or not.
Maybe it would be a better design for one to say "well the above should be unspecified, don't rely on it as a end-user." But given this is an already shipped API, I am very cautious to change that behavior.
It is possible to manually control this behavior with the above two constructs to get that sync functionality, so one can already get the necessary thing with a couple of extra lines without a performance penalty.
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.
I missed the current description.
"The calling thread will asynchronously try to obtain the given lock after the calling thread yields back to the event loop"
With it being explicitly defined, I agree we should not change its behavior, compared to it being undefined.
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.
Personally I think using the microtask queue should be fine here, and we could update the documentation to say "yields back to the microtask queue".
If there is code out there that is dependant on the ordering the the two callback about that seems way to fragile. Also, such code would have been broken by the existence of the current bug (i.e. the current bug this this PR fixes basically ensures that no such code exists in the wild yet, so now would be good time to switch to the microtask queue.. although that should be a followup PR I think).
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.
Judging "your code would be poor anyways, so it's fine to break it" might not work out too well in general.
The bug that is being fixed here is not that
emscripten_lock_async_acquire()would unconditionally deadlock, but thatemscripten_lock_async_acquire()acquires the lock, which prevents later synchronous locking.In above example, user might not necessarily acquire the lock in
doSomething(), but might be doing something else altogether.This is not correct. There is no issue with using
emscripten_lock_async_acquire()by itself (and having any sorts of interaction with respect to the event loop). It is only the scenario where the calling thread might also attempt to synchronously lock the same mutex right after issueing a call to async locking.One might also argue such behavior to be "fragile" and should not be used, since the very reason that async locking exists is to avoid busy-spinning the main loop, which is that often cited "considered harmful" behavior. I.e. this is basically fixing code that resides in the fragile code area to begin with. If we were web purists, the "proper" use of
emscripten_lock_async_acquire()would not also try to separately block the main thread.Another problem with switching to microtask is that repeatedly acquiring a lock will then cause the browser to hang, whereas with the current timeout, it will act like a setTimeout(0), pumping the event loop in between.
Ultimately though, the reason I hesitate to use microtask (even if we would decide it to be ok to change the semantics here) is that it would lead the default behavior of this API to have scheduling semantics that depend on multithreading contention. That reads really scary to me, way scarier than reasoning about busy-spinning on the main loop is.
I.e. if web folks are already arguing that main thread should not busy-spin because it is too hard to reason about wait times under contention, then I would argue that the scheduling ordering semantics should not be affected by contention, since reasoning about that is way way way harder than reasoning about wait times.
I think what we could do is in addition to the existing
emscripten_request_animation_frame()API, we could complement that with functionsemscripten_request_idle_callback()andemscripten_queue_microtask(). Then users would have a built-in way to write custom scheduling, e.g. withand the control of scheduling would always explicitly remain with the user, and not be dictated by lock contention.