river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: DynamicPolicyProvider concurrency
Date Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:47:31 GMT
I'll commit an example implementation shortly called ConcurrentPermissions

Comments Inline below:

Gregg Wonderly wrote:
> Specifically I am talking about implies() vs add().  I contend that 
> data races between internal state referred to by and set by 
> (respectively) these two methods is a non-issue.  Namely, the 
> guarantees that "volatile" (which did not exist as a workable 
> declaration when this code was written) provides are enough to allow 
> DynamicPolicyProvider.DomainPermissions to have implies() and add() 
> implementations that look like the following.  This is a partial 
> version of this class.  Basically, I removed all use of synchronized 
> (and the assert check in getPermissions() for Thread.holdsLock(this)) 
> and instead used copy-on-write and volatile to manage access to the 
> values held in perms and grants.
>
> If add() and implies() are being used concurrently in a data race kind 
> of way, then even synchronized() doesn't guarantee which version of 
> the data will be visible at the moment the implies() is called because 
> another thread doing add() may not be scheduled in a way to guarantee 
> that it calls add() before implies() is called for example.
>
> private class DomainPermissions {
>
>     private volatile PermissionCollection perms;
>     private volatile List grants = new ArrayList();
>
>     DomainPermissions(ProtectionDomain pd) {
>         Principal[] pra;
>         principals = (pd != null && (pra = pd.getPrincipals()).length 
> > 0)
>             ? new HashSet(Arrays.asList(pra)) : Collections.EMPTY_SET;
>         perms = cacheBasePerms ? basePolicy.getPermissions(pd) : null;
>     }
>
>     void add(Permission[] pa) {
>         List g = new ArrayList(grants);
>         PermissionCollection pc = new Permissions();
>         if( perms != null ) {
>             Enumeration<Permission> e = perms.elements();
Looking at the source in java.security.permissions.java , the 
perms.elements() method is a synchronized access to a HashMap that has 
its elements returned in an iterator by two method calls, 
permsMap.values().iterator() , this is still a synchronised access so 
you'll not gain any performance advantage,  but you'll be copying the 
hashmap unneccessarily.


>             while( e.hasMoreElements() ) {
>                 pc.add( e.nextElement() );
>             }
There are synchronized accesses occurring here in underlying 
implementations, however this operation isn't atomic, writes can occur 
concurrently, one or more Permission objects might go missing if writes 
occur concurrently to different PermissionCollection objects, where one 
replaces the other.
>         }
>         for (int i = 0; i < pa.length; i++) {
>             Permission p = pa[i];
>             g.add(p);
>             if (perms != null) {
>                 pc.add(p);
>             }
>         }
>         grants = g;
>         if( perms != null )
>             perms = pc;
>     }
>     boolean implies(Permission p, ProtectionDomain domain) {
There is still synchronized access in the underlying Permissions object, 
no increase in concurrency has been gained due to it's use of 
synchronized access of HashMap.

>         if (perms != null) {
>             return perms.implies(p);
>         }
>         if (basePolicy.implies(domain, p)) {
>             return true;
>         }
>         if (grants.isEmpty()) {
>             return false;
>         }
>         return getPermissions(false, domain).implies(p);
>     }
>
> }
>
> Gregg Wonderly
>
> Peter Firmstone wrote:
>> Ok,  You'll have to forgive me, I'm not near the source code at the 
>> moment, those last ideas appear useless, but I'll throw out some more 
>> ideas, I could be wrong.
>>
>> I think the synchronisation problems stem from the java libraries.
>>
>> java.security.Policy - abstract class extended by 
>> DynamicPolicyProvider, DynamicPolicyProvider appears to be a wrapper 
>> class, it has a useful constructor:
>>
>> DynamicPolicyProvider(Policy basepolicy)
>>
>> The javadoc tends to indicate that you need a new implementation of 
>> Policy that implements the DynamicProvider interface.
>>
>> You might also want to extend PermissionCollection which contains 
>> Permission objects.
>>
>> Have a look at Doug Lea's concurrency utilities interest site:
>>
>> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/
>>
>> There are plenty of lock free strategies & code you can utilise.  If 
>> I get some time, I'll have a look on the weekend.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>>
>> Peter Firmstone wrote:
>>> Peter Firmstone wrote:
>>>> Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>>>>> Peter Firmstone wrote:
>>>>>> Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>>>>>>> I have been looking into some seemingly slow responses in 
>>>>>>> several clients running simultaneously, and I see in some stack

>>>>>>> traces that there are synchronization points in 
>>>>>>> DynamicPolicyProvider.implies() that seem to be heavily 
>>>>>>> contended.  We probably need to revisit this class and rewrite

>>>>>>> it to use copy on write mutation so that reads (the majority
of 
>>>>>>> activity) are completely uncontended.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any thoughts or experience with this issue?
>>>>>> This sounds like a job for 
>>>>>> java.util.concurrent.ReentrantReadWriteLock!  Da dat, da dat, da

>>>>>> dat, da da!   Requires Java 5, works well, the javadoc is clear 
>>>>>> too.  Can you submit this as an issue on Jira?
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't actually want to lock, we just want to use a copy on 
>>>>> write update strategy that does lock but set volatile references 
>>>>> to the new contents.
>>> If you have multiple references containing object state, I'd suggest 
>>> using an immutable wrapper object (no setters) containing implicit 
>>> references to the objects, where it is read or replaced using a 
>>> single AtomicReference.  The problem you have then is whether the 
>>> state your wrapping has visibility elsewhere or not, it is likely 
>>> that these will all need to be created by using defensive copies in 
>>> your constructor, each time you wish to update state.
>>>
>>>> In other words you want an AtomicReference, the objects being 
>>>> de-referenced must be accessed by getting the referent for every 
>>>> read, it also must not be published (an implicit reference allowed 
>>>> to escape) after a read.  When the AtomicReference is updated it is 
>>>> guaranteed to be done atomically, however if the referent has 
>>>> escaped, any escaped (implicit) references will still refer to the 
>>>> old object.  This isn't as easy as it sounds.
>>>>
>>>> Use the compareAndSet() method, in case another write occurs, if 
>>>> the referent isn't the one expected (it just got updated), you can 
>>>> retry it.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't had time to look into the details so can't comment on 
>>>> whether this is appropriate or not.  You might want to try this and 
>>>> the ReentrantReadWriteLock and compare performance before 
>>>> deciding.  The contention write lock's cause might be negligible, 
>>>> for code, much easier to protect, read and understand later on.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Peter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregg Wonderly
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message