How does LMAX's disruptor pattern work?

Question

I am trying to understand the disruptor pattern. I have watched the InfoQ video and tried to read their paper. I understand there is a ring buffer involved, that it is initi

Answer 1

Martin Fowler has written an article about LMAX and the disruptor pattern, The LMAX Architecture, which may clarify it further.

Answer 2

The Google Code project does reference a technical paper on the implementation of the ring buffer, however it is a bit dry, academic and tough going for someone wanting to learn how it works. However there are some blog posts that have started to explain the internals in a more readable way. There is an explanation of ring buffer that is the core of the disruptor pattern, a description of the consumer barriers (the part related to reading from the disruptor) and some information on handling multiple producers available.

The simplest description of the Disruptor is: It is a way of sending messages between threads in the most efficient manner possible. It can be used as an alternative to a queue, but it also shares a number of features with SEDA and Actors.

Compared to Queues:

The Disruptor provides the ability to pass a message onto another threads, waking it up if required (similar to a BlockingQueue). However, there are 3 distinct differences.

1. The user of the Disruptor defines how messages are stored by extending Entry class and providing a factory to do the preallocation. This allows for either memory reuse (copying) or the Entry could contain a reference to another object.
2. Putting messages into the Disruptor is a 2-phase process, first a slot is claimed in the ring buffer, which provides the user with the Entry that can be filled with the appropriate data. Then the entry must be committed, this 2-phase approach is necessary to allow for the flexible use of memory mentioned above. It is the commit that makes the message visible to the consumer threads.
3. It is the responsibility of the consumer to keep track of the messages that have been consumed from the ring buffer. Moving this responsibility away from the ring buffer itself helped reduce the amount of write contention as each thread maintains its own counter.

Compared to Actors

The Actor model is closer the Disruptor than most other programming models, especially if you use the BatchConsumer/BatchHandler classes that are provided. These classes hide all of the complexities of maintaining the consumed sequence numbers and provide a set of simple callbacks when important events occur. However, there are a couple of subtle differences.

1. The Disruptor uses a 1 thread - 1 consumer model, where Actors use an N:M model i.e. you can have as many actors as you like and they will be distributed across a fixed numbers of threads (generally 1 per core).
2. The BatchHandler interface provides an additional (and very important) callback onEndOfBatch(). This allows for slow consumers, e.g. those doing I/O to batch events together to improve throughput. It is possible to do batching in other Actor frameworks, however as nearly all other frameworks don't provide a callback at the end of the batch you need to use a timeout to determine the end of the batch, resulting in poor latency.

Compared to SEDA

LMAX built the Disruptor pattern to replace a SEDA based approach.

1. The main improvement that it provided over SEDA was the ability to do work in parallel. To do this the Disruptor supports multi-casting the same messages (in the same order) to multiple consumers. This avoids the need for fork stages in the pipeline.
2. We also allow consumers to wait on the results of other consumers without having to put another queuing stage between them. A consumer can simply watch the sequence number of a consumer that it is dependent on. This avoids the need for join stages in pipeline.

Compared to Memory Barriers

Another way to think about it is as a structured, ordered memory barrier. Where the producer barrier forms the write barrier and the consumer barrier is the read barrier.

Answer 3

First we'd like to understand the programming model it offers.

There are one or more writers. There are one or more readers. There is a line of entries, totally ordered from old to new (pictured as left to right). Writers can add new entries on the right end. Every reader reads entries sequentially from left to right. Readers can't read past writers, obviously.

There is no concept of entry deletion. I use "reader" instead of "consumer" to avoid the image of entries being consumed. However we understand that entries on the left of the last reader become useless.

Generally readers can read concurrently and independently. However we can declare dependencies among readers. Reader dependencies can be arbitrary acyclic graph. If reader B depends on reader A, reader B can't read past reader A.

Reader dependency arises because reader A can annotate an entry, and reader B depends on that annotation. For example, A does some calculation on an entry, and stores the result in field a in the entry. A then move on, and now B can read the entry, and the value of a A stored. If reader C does not depend on A, C should not attempt to read a.

This is indeed an interesting programming model. Regardless of the performance, the model alone can benefit lots of applications.

Of course, LMAX's main goal is performance. It uses a pre-allocated ring of entries. The ring is large enough, but it's bounded so that the system will not be loaded beyond design capacity. If the ring is full, writer(s) will wait until the slowest readers advance and make room.

Entry objects are pre-allocated and live forever, to reduce garbage collection cost. We don't insert new entry objects or delete old entry objects, instead, a writer asks for a pre-existing entry, populate its fields, and notify readers. This apparent 2-phase action is really simply an atomic action

setNewEntry(EntryPopulator);

interface EntryPopulator{ void populate(Entry existingEntry); }

Pre-allocating entries also means adjacent entries (very likely) locate in adjacent memory cells, and because readers read entries sequentially, this is important to utilize CPU caches.

And lots of efforts to avoid lock, CAS, even memory barrier (e.g. use a non-volatile sequence variable if there's only one writer)

For developers of readers: Different annotating readers should write to different fields, to avoid write contention. (Actually they should write to different cache lines.) An annotating reader should not touch anything that other non-dependent readers may read. This is why I say these readers annotate entries, instead of modify entries.

Answer 4

I actually took the time to study the actual source, out of sheer curiosity, and the idea behind it is quite simple. The most recent version at the time of writing this post is 3.2.1.

There is a buffer storing pre-allocated events that will hold the data for consumers to read.

The buffer is backed by an array of flags (integer array) of its length that describes the availability of the buffer slots (see further for details). The array is accessed like a java#AtomicIntegerArray, so for the purpose of this explenation you may as well assume it to be one.

There can be any number of producers. When the producer wants to write to the buffer, an long number is generated (as in calling AtomicLong#getAndIncrement, the Disruptor actually uses its own implementation, but it works in the same manner). Let's call this generated long a producerCallId. In a similar manner, a consumerCallId is generated when a consumer ENDS reading a slot from a buffer. The most recent consumerCallId is accessed.

(If there are many consumers, the call with the lowest id is choosen.)

These ids are then compared, and if the difference between the two is lesser that the buffer side, the producer is allowed to write.

(If the producerCallId is greater than the recent consumerCallId + bufferSize, it means that the buffer is full, and the producer is forced to bus-wait until a spot becomes available.)

The producer is then assigned the slot in the buffer based on his callId (which is prducerCallId modulo bufferSize, but since the bufferSize is always a power of 2 (limit enforced on buffer creation), the actuall operation used is producerCallId & (bufferSize - 1)). It is then free to modify the event in that slot.

(The actual algorithm is a bit more complicated, involving caching recent consumerId in a separate atomic reference, for optimisation purposes.)

When the event was modified, the change is "published". When publishing the respective slot in the flag array is filled with the updated flag. The flag value is the number of the loop (producerCallId divided by bufferSize (again since bufferSize is power of 2, the actual operation is a right shift).

In a similar manner there can be any number of consumers. Each time a consumer wants to access the buffer, a consumerCallId is generated (depending on how the consumers were added to the disruptor the atomic used in id generation may be shared or separate for each of them). This consumerCallId is then compared to the most recent producentCallId, and if it is lesser of the two, the reader is allowed to progress.

(Similarly if the producerCallId is even to the consumerCallId, it means that the buffer is empety and the consumer is forced to wait. The manner of waiting is defined by a WaitStrategy during disruptor creation.)

For individual consumers (the ones with their own id generator), the next thing checked is the ability to batch consume. The slots in the buffer are examined in order from the one respective to the consumerCallId (the index is determined in the same manner as for producers), to the one respective to the recent producerCallId.

They are examined in a loop by comparing the flag value written in the flag array, against a flag value generated for the consumerCallId. If the flags match it means that the producers filling the slots has commited their changes. If not, the loop is broken, and the highest commited changeId is returned. The slots from ConsumerCallId to received in changeId can be consumed in batch.

If a group of consumers read together (the ones with shared id generator), each one only takes a single callId, and only the slot for that single callId is checked and returned.

Answer 5

From this article:

The disruptor pattern is a batching queue backed up by a circular array (i.e. the ring buffer) filled with pre-allocated transfer objects which uses memory-barriers to synchronize producers and consumers through sequences.

Memory-barriers are kind of hard to explain and Trisha's blog has done the best attempt in my opinion with this post: http://mechanitis.blogspot.com/2011/08/dissecting-disruptor-why-its-so-fast.html

But if you don't want to dive into the low-level details you can just know that memory-barriers in Java are implemented through the volatile keyword or through the java.util.concurrent.AtomicLong. The disruptor pattern sequences are AtomicLongs and are communicated back and forth among producers and consumers through memory-barriers instead of locks.

I find it easier to understand a concept through code, so the code below is a simple helloworld from CoralQueue, which is a disruptor pattern implementation done by CoralBlocks with which I am affiliated. In the code below you can see how the disruptor pattern implements batching and how the ring-buffer (i.e. circular array) allows for garbage-free communication between two threads:

package com.coralblocks.coralqueue.sample.queue;

import com.coralblocks.coralqueue.AtomicQueue;
import com.coralblocks.coralqueue.Queue;
import com.coralblocks.coralqueue.util.MutableLong;

public class Sample {

    public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {

        final Queue<MutableLong> queue = new AtomicQueue<MutableLong>(1024, MutableLong.class);

        Thread consumer = new Thread() {

            @Override
            public void run() {

                boolean running = true;

                while(running) {
                    long avail;
                    while((avail = queue.availableToPoll()) == 0); // busy spin
                    for(int i = 0; i < avail; i++) {
                        MutableLong ml = queue.poll();
                        if (ml.get() == -1) {
                            running = false;
                        } else {
                            System.out.println(ml.get());
                        }
                    }
                    queue.donePolling();
                }
            }

        };

        consumer.start();

        MutableLong ml;

        for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
            while((ml = queue.nextToDispatch()) == null); // busy spin
            ml.set(System.nanoTime());
            queue.flush();
        }

        // send a message to stop consumer...
        while((ml = queue.nextToDispatch()) == null); // busy spin
        ml.set(-1);
        queue.flush();

        consumer.join(); // wait for the consumer thread to die...
    }
}