Menu
I used to see the term "lock free data structure" and think "ooooo that must be really complex". However, I have been reading "C++ Concurrency in Action" and it seems to write a lock-free data structure all you do is stop using mutexes/locks and replace them with atomic code (along with possible memory-ordering barriers).
So my question is- am I missing something here? Is it really that much simpler due to C++11? Is writing a lock-free data structure just a case of replacing the locks with atomic operations?
955
The key in lock-free programming is to use hardware-intrinsic atomic operations. As a matter of fact, even locks themselves must use those atomic operations!
A lock-free data structure can be used to improve performance. A lock-free data structure increases the amount of time spent in parallel execution rather than serial execution, improving performance on a multi-core processor, because access to the shared data structure does not need to be serialized to stay coherent.
atomic<T> variables don't use locks (at least where T is natively atomic on your platform), but they're not lock-free in the sense above. You might use them in the implementation of a lock-free container, but they're not sufficient on their own.
Intuitively, lock-free means that some process is always guaranteed to make progress by completing its operations within a finite number of system steps, while wait-free means that each process completes its operations within a finite number of its own steps.
Ooooo but that is really complex.
If you don't see the difference between a mutex and an atomic access, there is something wrong with the way you look at parallel processing, and there will soon be something wrong with the code you write.
Most likely it will run slower than the equivalent blocking version, and if you (or rather your coworkers) are really unlucky, it will spout the occasional inconsistent data and crash randomly.
Even more likely, it will propagate real-time constraints to large parts of your application, forcing your coworkers to waste a sizeable amount of their time coping with arbitrary requirements they and their software would have quite happily lived without, and resort to various superstitions good practices to obfuscate their code into submission.
Oh well, as long as the template guys and the wait-free guys had their little fun...
Parallel processing, be it blocking or supposedly wait-free, is inherently resource consuming,complex and costly to implement. Designing a software architecture that takes a real advantage from non-trivial parallel processing is a job for specialists.
A good software design should on the contrary limit the parallelism to the bare minimum, leaving most of the programmers free to implement linear, sequential code.
As for C++, I find this whole philosophy of wrapping indifferently a string, a thread and a coffee machine in the same syntactic goo a disastrous design choice.
C++ is allowing you to create a multiprocessor synchronization object out of about anything, like you would allocate a mere string, which is akin to presenting an assault rifle next to a squirt gun in the same display case.
No doubt a lot of people are making a living by selling the idea that an assault rifle and a squirt gun are, after all, not so different. But still, they are.
177
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
