Gilgamesz Gilgamesz - 1 year ago 90
C++ Question

Atomic syscall. Input/Output operations

I would like to write multithreading-safe logger using lock-free queue. Logging threads will push messages to queue and logger will be popping them and send to output. I consider how to solve that issue- sending to output.
I would like to avoid using mutex/locks as long as it is possible.
So, let's assume that I am going to use C++ streams to write to the file/console. We can assume that target system is Linux.

Ok, writing to stream must be just a wrapper ( perhaps a advanced wrapper) for system call offered by Unix

. From what I know syscalls are atomic ( only one process can execute syscall at the same time). So, it is tempting not to use locks to make safe writing to file.
is a system call but it doesn't guarantees writing "whole output". It returns number of bytes which are succesfully written to the file.

Basically, my question is:
How to solve it? Is it possible to avoid mutex? ( I think it is not possible). And please mark my considerations, am I wrong?

Answer Source

Igor is right: just have one thread do all the log writes. Keep in mind that the kernel has to do locking to synchronize access to the open file descriptor (which keeps track of the file position), so by doing writes from multiple cores you're causing contention inside the kernel. Even worse, you're making system calls from multiple cores, which means the kernel's code / data accesses will dirty your caches on multiple cores.

See this paper for more about the impact of making system calls on the performance of user-space code after the syscall completes. (And about data / instruction cache misses inside the kernel for infrequent syscalls). It definitely makes sense to have one thread doing all the system calls, at least all the write system calls, to keep that part of your process's footprint isolated to one core. As well as the locking contention inside the kernel.

That FlexSC paper is about an idea for batching system calls to reduce user->kernel->user transitions, but they also measure overhead for the normal synchronous system-call method. More important is the discussion of cache-pollution from making system calls.

Alternatively, if you can let multiple threads write to your log file, you could just do that and not use the queue at all.

It's not guaranteed that a large write will finish uninterrupted, but a small to medium sized write should (almost?) always copy its whole buffer on most OSes. Especially if you're writing to a file, not a pipe. IDK how Linux write() behaves when it's preempted, but I expect it usually resumes to finish the write instead of returning without having written all the requested bytes. Partial writes might be more likely when interrupted by a signal.

It is guaranteed that bytes from two write() system calls won't be mixed together; all the bytes from one will be before or after the bytes from the other. You're correct that partial writes are a potential problem, though. I forget if the glibc syscall wrapper will resume the call for you on EINTR. Although in that case, it means no bytes actually got written, or it would have returned success with a byte count.

You should test this, for partial writes and for performance. kernel-space locking might be cheaper than the overhead of your lock-free queue, but making system calls from every thread that generates log messages might be worse for performance. (And when you test this, make sure you do it with some real work happening in your user-space process, not just a loop that only calls write.)

Recommended from our users: Dynamic Network Monitoring from WhatsUp Gold from IPSwitch. Free Download