我正在尝试实现一个基于数组的环形缓冲区,该缓冲区对于多个生产者和单个消费者都是线程安全的。主要思想是拥有原子头和尾索引。将元素推送到队列时,原子头会自动增加以在缓冲区中保留一个插槽:
#include <atomic>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
template <class T> class MPSC {
private:
int MAX_SIZE;
std::atomic<int> head{0}; ///< index of first free slot
std::atomic<int> tail{0}; ///< index of first occupied slot
std::unique_ptr<T[]> data;
std::unique_ptr<std::atomic<bool>[]> valid; ///< indicates whether data at an
///< index has been fully written
/// Compute next index modulo size.
inline int advance(int x) { return (x + 1) % MAX_SIZE; }
public:
explicit MPSC(int size) {
if (size <= 0)
throw std::invalid_argument("size must be greater than 0");
MAX_SIZE = size + 1;
data = std::make_unique<T[]>(MAX_SIZE);
valid = std::make_unique<std::atomic<bool>[]>(MAX_SIZE);
}
/// Add an element to the queue.
///
/// If the queue is full, this method blocks until a slot is available for
/// writing. This method is not starvation-free, i.e. it is possible that one
/// thread always fills up the queue and prevents others from pushing.
void push(const T &msg) {
int idx;
int next_idx;
int k = 100;
do {
idx = head;
next_idx = advance(idx);
while (next_idx == tail) { // queue is full
k = k >= 100000 ? k : k * 2; // exponential backoff
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::nanoseconds(k));
} // spin
} while (!head.compare_exchange_weak(idx, next_idx));
if (valid[idx])
// this throws, suggesting that two threads are writing to the same index. I have no idea how this is possible.
throw std::runtime_error("message slot already written");
data[idx] = msg;
valid[idx] = true; // this was set to false by the reader,
// set it to true to indicate completed data write
}
/// Read an element from the queue.
///
/// If the queue is empty, this method blocks until a message is available.
/// This method is only safe to be called from one single reader thread.
T pop() {
int k = 100;
while (is_empty() || !valid[tail]) {
k = k >= 100000 ? k : k * 2;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::nanoseconds(k));
} // spin
T res = data[tail];
valid[tail] = false;
tail = advance(tail);
return res;
}
bool is_full() { return (head + 1) % MAX_SIZE == tail; }
bool is_empty() { return head == tail; }
};
当拥塞很多时,某些消息会被其他线程覆盖。因此,我在这里所做的事情一定有根本性的错误。
似乎正在发生的事情是两个线程正在获取相同的索引以将其数据写入其中。为什么会这样?
即使生产者要在写入数据之前暂停,尾部也无法通过该线程idx增加,因此任何其他线程都不能超越并声明相同的idx。
编辑
下面有一个简单的程序可以重现该问题,而这可能会发布过多的代码。它从许多线程发送一些递增的数字,并检查使用者是否收到了所有数字:
#include "mpsc.hpp" // or whatever; the above queue
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
static constexpr int N_THREADS = 10; ///< number of threads
static constexpr int N_MSG = 1E+5; ///< number of messages per thread
struct msg {
int t_id;
int i;
};
MPSC<msg> q(N_THREADS / 2);
std::thread threads[N_THREADS];
// consumer
threads[0] = std::thread([&q] {
int expected[N_THREADS] {};
for (int i = 0; i < N_MSG * (N_THREADS - 1); ++i) {
msg m = q.pop();
std::cout << "Got message from T-" << m.t_id << ": " << m.i << std::endl;
if (expected[m.t_id] != m.i) {
std::cout << "T-" << m.t_id << " unexpected msg " << m.i << "; expected " << expected[m.t_id] << std::endl;
return -1;
}
expected[m.t_id] = m.i + 1;
}
});
// producers
for (int id = 1; id < N_THREADS; ++id) {
threads[id] = std::thread([id, &q] {
for (int i = 0; i < N_MSG; ++i) {
q.push(msg{id, i});
}
});
}
for (auto &t : threads)
t.join();
}
答案 0 :(得分:1)
我正在尝试实现一个基于数组的环形缓冲区,该缓冲区对于多个生产者和单个消费者都是线程安全的。
我认为您是在做学习练习。如果您想解决实际的问题,那么自己实现无锁队列很可能是错误的事情。
似乎正在发生的事情是两个线程正在获取相同的索引以将其数据写入其中。为什么会这样?
该生产者自旋锁与外部CAS循环的组合无法按预期的方式起作用:
do {
idx = head;
next_idx = advance(idx);
while (next_idx == tail) { // queue is full
k = k >= 100000 ? k : k * 2; // exponential backoff
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::nanoseconds(k));
} // spin
//
// ...
//
// All other threads (producers and consumers) can progress.
//
// ...
//
} while (!head.compare_exchange_weak(idx, next_idx));
CAS发生时,队列可能已满,因为这些检查是独立执行的。另外,CAS可能会成功,因为其他线程可能具有高级head
以完全匹配idx
。