1. E81 CSE 532S: Advanced Multi-Paradigm Software Development Christopher Gill and Venkita Subramonian Department of Computer Science and Engineering Washington University, St. Louis cdgill@cse.wustl.edu Deadlock Avoidance in Pattern Oriented Software Architecture

2. Main Themes of this Talk Vertical vs. horizontal design of architectures Consider how design choices have side effects Design scenario case study –A distributed request-response system –Concurrency as a scarce resource –Avoiding deadlock efficiently Also, illustrative as a Service Access and Configuration Pattern Language –Interceptor to manipulate concurrency at key points –Component Configurator to install DA protocol

3. Motivating Scenario Request-response client server applications –E.g., CORBA, N-tier web servers, etc. –Any “component” can send requests, obtain results Distributed data and analysis components –Requests may be sent locally or remotely –Processing a request may require making new requests –Thus, request chains may span endsystem boundaries Raises new concerns related to liveness and safety –Assume a reactive/multithreaded concurrency architecture Reactor threads service upcalls to clients Number of threads overall is bounded (e.g., due to overhead) –Local thread management decisions impact global behavior E.g., WaitOnReactor leads to stacking of result handling E.g., Stackless approach increases request/result matching overhead E.g., WaitOnConnection raises deadlock issues

4. Vertical Design of an Architecture From HS/HA & LF lecture –Designed to handle streams of mixed duration requests Focused on interactions among local mechanisms –Concurrency and synchronization concerns –Hand-offs among threads Well suited for “hub and spokes” or “processing pipeline” style applications However, in some applications, a distributed view is more appropriate enqueue requests leader thread reactor thread hand off chains follower threads Mixed Duration Request Handlers (MDRH)

5. Horizontal Design of an Architecture Application components are implemented as handlers –Use reactor threads to run input and output methods –Send requests to other handlers via sockets, upcalls –These in turn define key interception points end-to-end Example of a multi-host request/result chain –h1 to h2, h2 to h3, h3 to h4 reactor r1 handler h1 reactor r2 reactor r3 socket handler h2handler h4handler h3

6. WaitOnConnection Strategy Handler waits on socket connection for the reply –Makes a blocking call to socket’s recv() method Benefits –No interference from other requests that arrive while the reply is pending Drawbacks –One less thread in the Reactor for new requests –Could allow deadlocks when upcalls are nested

7. WaitOnReactor Strategy Handler returns control to reactor until reply comes back –Reactor can keep processing other requests while replies are pending Benefits –Thread available, no deadlock –Thread stays fully occupied Drawbacks –Interleaving of request reply processing –Interference from other requests issued while reply is pending

8. Blocking with WaitOnReactor Wait-on-Reactor strategy could cause interleaved request/reply processing Blocking factor could be large or even unbounded –Based on the upcall duration –And sequence of other intervening upcalls Blocking factors may affect real-time properties of other end-systems –Call-chains can have a cascading blocking effect f2f2 f5f5 f3f3 f 5 reply queued f 3 completes f 5 reply processed f 2 completes blocking factor due to f 2

9. “Stackless” WaitOnReactor Variant What if we didn’t “stack” processing of results? –But instead allowed them to handled asynchronously as they are ready –Thanks to Caleb Hines for pointing out this exemplar from “Stackless Python” Benefits –No interference from other requests that arrive when reply is pending –No risk of deadlock as thread still returns to reactor Drawbacks –Significant increase in implementation complexity –Time and space overhead to match requests to results (hash maps, AO, pointer ACTs, etc. could help, though)

10. Could WaitOnConnection Be Used? Main limitation is its potential for deadlock –And, it offers low overhead, ease of use Could we make a system deadlock-free … –if we knew its call-graph … and were careful about how threads were allowed to proceed?

11. Each reactor is assigned a color Deadlock can exist –If there exists > K c segments of color C –Where K c is the number of threads in node with color C –E.g., f3-f2-f4-f5-f2 needs at least 2 & 1 Deadlock Problem in Terms of Call Graph f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 From Venkita Subramonian and Christopher Gill, “A Generative Programming Framework for Adaptive Middleware”, 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’04)

12. Simulation Showing Thread Exhaustion Reactor1 Client1 Client2 Client3 Reactor2 Increasing number of reactor threads may not always prevent deadlock Can model this formally (UPPAL, IF) Server1Server2 Flow1 Flow2 Flow3 EH1 1 EH3 1 EH2 1 EH1 2 EH1 3 EH2 2 EH2 3 EH3 2 EH3 3 Clients send requests 3: Client3 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(13,10) 4: Unidir_IPC_13_14 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(13,14,10) 5: Client2 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(7,10) 6: Unidir_IPC_7_8 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(7,8,10) 7: Client1 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(1,10) 8: Unidir_IPC_1_2 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(1,2,10) Reactor1 makes upcalls to event handlers 10: Reactor1_TPRHE1 ---handle_input(2,1)---> Flow1_EH1 12: Reactor1_TPRHE2 ---handle_input(8,2)---> Flow2_EH1 14: Reactor1_TPRHE3 ---handle_input(14,3)---> Flow3_EH1 Flow1 proceeds 15: Time advanced by 25 units. Global time is 28 16: Flow1_EH1 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(3,10) 17: Unidir_IPC_3_4 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(3,4,10) 19: Reactor2_TPRHE4 ---handle_input(4,4)---> Flow1_EH2 20: Time advanced by 25 units. Global time is 53 21: Flow1_EH2 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(5,10) 22: Unidir_IPC_5_6 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(5,6,10) Flow2 proceeds 23: Time advanced by 25 units. Global time is 78 24: Flow2_EH1 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(9,10) 25: Unidir_IPC_9_10 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(9,10,10) 27: Reactor2_TPRHE5 ---handle_input(10,5)---> Flow2_EH2 28: Time advanced by 25 units. Global time is 103 29: Flow2_EH2 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(11,10) 30: Unidir_IPC_11_12 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(11,12,10) Flow3 proceeds 31: Time advanced by 25 units. Global time is 128 32: Flow3_EH1 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(15,10) 33: Unidir_IPC_15_16 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(15,16,10) 35: Reactor2_TPRHE6 ---handle_input(16,6)---> Flow3_EH2 36: Time advanced by 25 units. Global time is 153 37: Flow3_EH2 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Write(17,10) 38: Unidir_IPC_17_18 : TRACE_SAP_Buffer_Transfer(17,18,10) 39: Time advanced by 851 units. Global time is 1004

13. Solution: Deadlock Avoidance Protocols César Sánchez: PhD dissertation at Stanford Paul Oberlin: MS project here at WUSTL Avoid interactions leading to deadlock –a liveness property Like synchronization, achived via scheduling –Upcalls are delayed until enough threads are ready But, introduces small blocking delays –a timing property –In real-time systems, also a safety property

14. DA Protocol Overview Designed * and proven + by Cesar Sanchez, Henny Sipma and Zohar Manna (Stanford) Regulates upcalls based on # of available reactor threads and call graph’s “thread height” –Does not allow exhaustion BASIC-P protocol implemented in the ACE TP Reactor –Using handle suspension and resumption –Backward compatible, minimal overhead *Sanchez, Sipma, Subramonian and Gill, “Thread Allocation Protocols for Distributed Real-Time and Embedded Systems”, FORTE 2005 + Sanchez, Sipma, Manna, Subramonian, and Gill, “On Efficient Distributed Deadlock Avoidance for Real-Time and Embedded Systems”, IPDPS 2006 EH1 1 EH2 1 EH1 2 EH1 3 EH2 2 EH2 3 EH3 3 Client3 Client2 Client1 Server1Server2 Reactor1Reactor2 EH3 1 EH3 2 Flow1 Flow2 Flow3

15. Choosing our First Patterns Two main issues must be addressed –How reactors can know how many threads it’s safe to allocate at once to a handler –How reactors can use that information at run-time For the first issue, need a way to obtain call graph depth (number of threads needed) –Can specify this a priori (give a table to reactor) –Can also ask objects to “call downstream” to obtain graph heights from their children Can use ACT and Interceptor to implement this Can use Component Configurator to decouple and enable installation of standard vs. (various) DA protocol services

16. Choosing our Next Patterns Second Issue –How reactors can use that information at run-time Need to determine when it’s ok to dispatch –Maintain counters of thread upcalls in progress –Can use Interceptor again to implement this Need to block threads until it’s ok to proceed –Can use a form of Scoped Locking But modify guard condition so it only proceeds when safe Can think of this being similar to leader election in L/F Need to record when threads complete –Again, scoped locking decreases “in-use count” –And may be done within an “upcall” interceptor

17. Timing traces from model/execution show DA protocol regulating the flows to use available resources without deadlock EH3 3 EH2 3 EH1 3 Timing Traces: DA Protocol at Work EH2 2 EH1 2 R1R2 EH3 2 Flow2 R1R2 Flow3 EH3 1 EH2 1 EH1 1 R1R2 Flow1

18. DA Blocking Delay (Simulated vs. Actual) Actual ExecutionModel Execution Blocking delay for Client2 Blocking delay for Client3

19. Overhead of ACE TP reactor with DA Negligible overhead with no DA protocol Overhead increases with number of event handlers because of their suspension and resumption on protocol entry and exit

20. Concluding Remarks Horizontal Design of Architectures –Often as important as vertical design –Not as frequently encountered/addressed Design Choices Demand Further Effort –Needed deadlock avoidance theory/implementation to make WaitOnConnection an effective option That Effort Leads to Further Design Choices –To implement deadlock avoidance efficiently And in Turn Leads to Further Design Forces –For example, DA protocol blocking factors, costs