[andikleen2]

He's assuming that retrying forever is a valid retry strategy, which it is not. For example if a page fault was needed to satisfy one of the memory access it would never finish.

See https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/tsx-anti-patterns-... and https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/06/23/tsx-fallba... for more details/

To make his code work he likely would need a global fallback lock (or a real STM) and guarantee that every change of the touched memory uses those too (which would be hard)

So I'm afraid the library is fairly broken.

[scivey7]

I'm aware of the issue with non-terminating transactions, though I wasn't aware of the role played by page faults -- thanks for adding that detail.

Looking back over the readme, I can see how the loops used in the examples are a little misleading.

This is mostly a documentation issue: the core XACT code doesn't use infinite retry loops, and actually does not retry transactions at all. As with std::atomic, the goal is to provide a basic primitive and leave retry / backoff / etc. up to the user. This is especially important with lock-based fallbacks, as I can't pick one perfect lock to fit everyone's workload.

I ended up dropping retries because I ran into so many never-ending transactions in my early experiments with TSX. That was also my motivation for limiting the transactions to as few locations as possible.

I'm just now starting to reexamine this and add some configurable retry logic back in -- e.g. the retry policy here is used in some test code: https://github.com/scivey/xact/blob/master/include/xact/atom...

As to the difficulty of protecting any memory touched in a transaction under a locking scheme: that kind of problem is exactly why XACT is focused on CAS-like operations on relatively limited sets of memory addresses.

Can you elaborate on the global lock? What's the motivation there?

[andikleen2]

Practically all valid fallback schemes require putting the lock (or something else like a sequence counter for a STM) into the read set of the transaction to properly synchronize between transactions and non transactions. Since you hide the transaction in your library it's not possible to do that with your current API. It would be very hard to construct a fallback path that is not racy.

(See Anti pattern #4 in the link above)

A global lock is usually the simplest fall back path, and the performance can be good enough because it's just a slow path. Of course it's always possible to do something more complex.

[hendzen]

For anyone not aware, the parent commenter, Andi Kleene, is an expert on TSX. When I last seriously looked in to TSX, around 2013, he was maintaining a fork of glibc with support for TSX-optimized pthread primitives and had written most of the high quality blog posts and information about TSX available online.

[loeg]

It's really unfortunate semantics that a page fault condition during a transaction doesn't actually raise the fault. Is there a downside I'm not seeing to raising the fault and then aborting the transaction? (That way, retry would succeed.)

[andikleen2]

This would be only useful for "good" page faults that fault something in, but not for "bad" ones (like NULL pointer). If a bad page fault was executed it would allow transactions to crash the program, which wouldn't be very atomic.

The transaction mechanism doesn't know in advance if it's a good or a bad page fault.

You would need to tell the operating system kernel that the page fault happened in a transaction, and let it ignore it if it was a bad page fault. That would be much more complicated than current TSX.

Also there are other cases were retries will not succeed, page fault was just an example. Another common case is the dynamic linker when a library function is first executed.