[ajamesm]

The linked list discussed in the article forgoes mutexes, but in exchange, operations aren't guaranteed to succeed:

  Because we are no longer taking explicit locks,
  there is no guarantee that insert operation will succeed.
  Therefore, CAS based algorithms are usually implemented
  using a loop (aka CAS loop) to retry the operation when
  CAS fails.

So you're still getting spinlocks (or context switches, etc.) assuming these inserts have to eventually succeed. Implicitly, the CAS does "lock" in the sense of forcing other accesses into retry loops. You're still dealing with the problems inherent to your waiting strategy. This data structure doesn't prevent problems like starvation. In the pathological case, you'll get stuck forever in a spinlock trying to insert.

> In some sense, this is the critical reason that CAS and lock-free programming is interesting

Right. The article's preface criticizes implementations of mutexes in C++ and Java as unscalable, which is certainly a problem, but categorically a different concern from that of designing lock-free algorithms or data structures.

[dbaupp]

One thread possibly being starved is very different to all threads being starved, as can happen with blocking algorithms (the classic example being the thread holding a lock is descheduled: no-one needing it can make any progress). Atomic instructions like CAS do not inherently have this problem, and can be used in ways to avoid it (such as how the article describes it), but the same is not true of mutexes.

I personally find it makes sense think of this is more of a transactional thing (one thread invalidates the transactions of others), rather than a mutex-esque critical section.

In any case, the article (accidentally or otherwise) does actually use the correct technical term for code where some threads may be starved while others make progress (lock-free). If it was trying to discuss code that avoid this, it would be "Notes on Wait Free Programming", and would likely be significantly longer.

[ajamesm]

  In this post, I will summarize my understanding of a non-blocking (lock free) design of linked list data structure...

The author conflates blocking with lock-free. Starvation is a form of blocking, non-blocking implies no starvation.

[dbaupp]

It isn't a form of blocking, and it doesn't imply that, in the conventional/widespread definitions of these terms: "Lock-freedom allows individual threads to starve but guarantees system-wide throughput" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-blocking_algorithm#Lock-fr... . The subclassification of non-blocking that avoids starvation is wait-free ("Wait-freedom is the strongest non-blocking guarantee of progress, combining guaranteed system-wide throughput with starvation-freedom", from the Wikipedia article above).

[ajamesm]

In that case, I guess we're just drawing from different glossaries. I've always heard "blocked" used to mean "can't execute because of something other threads are doing" regardless of whether that's starvation or getting slept by a mutex.

[charleslmunger]

I don't think that's a definition that makes sense - consider Thread.sleep(Integer.MAX_VALUE). I think we would all agree that the thread is blocked, but not on the progress of other threads.

[MaulingMonkey]

> So you're still getting spinlocks (or context switches, etc.) assuming these inserts have to eventually succeed.

While CAS can be used to implement spinlocks (and we agree this certainly isn't lock free), I would not label all uses of CAS with loops as spinlocks. If it's impossible for another thread "A" to fail (or otherwise suspend) holding a mutex in a 'locked' or other intermediate state, such that no other thread can continue their desired execution while that thread "A" is suspended - coinciding with e.g. the possible dangers of deadlocks - it's not a 'lock' as I'd use the term.

Stretch the term "locking" much farther and then you can start getting into philosophical debates about just how "lock free" is an atomic increment? CPU cache coherency protocols between cores amount to something rather similar to locking when you get right down to it... at this point, you abandon "lock free" as a useful term (and should instead use terms like "share nothing", "single threaded", or "buggy" where you previously used the term "lock free".)

> You're still dealing with the problems inherent to your waiting strategy. This data structure doesn't prevent problems like starvation. In the pathological case, you'll get stuck forever in a spinlock trying to insert.

Potentially, yes. "Lock free" is not contention free. It is a different strategy for managing contention. It is not "cheaper locking" - throwing a mutex and locks at the problem can be cheaper than using "lock free" algorithms. Serialized access to a resource can be faster than two cores false sharing, constantly invalidating each other's cachelines.

FWIW, this seems to line up with the definitions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-blocking_algorithm , which suggests the term "wait free" to describe options that cannot deadlock or livelock (e.g. all threads have a guaranteed upper bound of operations, within which they'll make progress, regardless of the failure or suspension of other threads accessing the resource.)

[chrisseaton]

> This data structure doesn't prevent problems like starvation

But that's fine! Lock-free permits starvation. Not every data structure can solve every problem. If you can't have starvation then lock-free isn't enough. In which case, this article isn't for you.

[ajamesm]

You realize you cherry-picked a snippet of my post, and then made the exact point I just made, which is:

There aren't deadlocks, but there is still waiting and potential starvation, all of which can be informally called "locks" and so we need to be careful about qualifying "locking".

This isn't a criticism of lock-free methodology, but a consideration of the ways in which "lock-free" could be interpreted.

[chrisseaton]

> all of which can be informally called "locks"

> the ways in which "lock-free" could be interpreted

This is only a problem if you use a definition of the 'lock' in 'lock-free' that isn't the same as everyone else's.

I guess I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say if that isn't it. I'll stop criticising.