From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Explaining cond var destroy [Re: [musl] C threads, v3.0]
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:04:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1407827079.15134.109.camel@eris.loria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140812025013.GY1674@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2932 bytes --]
Hello,
Am Montag, den 11.08.2014, 22:50 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:47:34AM +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > > Any further thoughts on the matter? I think we should finish the
> > > private futex support task before starting on this, so that we don't
> > > do new work that's going to conflict with a pending patch.
> >
> > This looks promissing, but I yet don't know enough about these less
> > common futex operations to comment more on it.
>
> You may want to see my comments here which relate to it:
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13690
thanks for the pointer, I also read up on the subject a bit in the
mean time.
> > Generally I think that the control structures should be as tight as
> > possible, give provable properties in the mathematical sense. The
> > interaction between user- and kernelland should be minimal, and we
> > shouldn't provoque reactions of the kernel that concern threads (or
> > even process) that are not really targetted.
>
> The former (provable properties) is definitely a goal we should not
> deviate from. But I don't think the current spurious futex wakes
> conflict with that goal.
>
> The latter (not provoking reactions in untargetted threads) is a
> desirable goal, but not if it conflicts with more important goals like
> avoiding unnecessary allocation (actually, I don't think it's possible
> to solve the problem with allocation; I think an additional layer of
> allocation just makes it worse), fail-safety, performance, etc.
Did you have a chance to look into my recent implementation of C
threads that I attached to my last post? In particular in
cnd_broadcast you see the advantages, I think:
- cnd doesn't have to do bookkeeping for the threads waiting on the
condition, the kernel bookkeeping is used for that
- threads that had to go into futex wait only touch the temporary
structure and this only for the reference count
- a tight spinlock clearly defines the ordering of the cnd_t
operations
> On the other hand, I think it's going to be possible to get both
> without sacrificing anything, and moreover I think we can even, if we
> want to, provide guaranteed mutex acquisition order (whatever order
> the kernel gives, which is probably fifo or fifo within priority
> levels). I'll write up the concept for the latter in case there's
> interest in doing it. It might avoid the problem even without using
> FUTEX_WAKE_OP.
I think so, too. Perhaps we should work it from both ends. I will now
try to avoid the need for allocation.
Jens
--
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: AlGorille ::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-12 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-04 9:30 C threads, v3.0 Jens Gustedt
2014-08-04 9:33 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-04 14:50 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-04 16:48 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-04 17:06 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-04 22:16 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-04 22:36 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-06 3:52 ` Explaining cond var destroy [Re: [musl] C threads, v3.0] Rich Felker
2014-08-06 8:43 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-06 9:41 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-06 10:03 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-06 10:32 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-06 16:15 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-06 16:56 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-06 17:32 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-06 20:55 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-06 22:04 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-06 22:43 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-06 23:15 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-07 7:50 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-07 10:52 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2014-08-07 11:03 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-07 16:13 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-07 16:47 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-07 17:25 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-08 9:20 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-08 16:53 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-08 19:14 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-08 20:48 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-09 6:47 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-12 2:50 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-12 7:04 ` Jens Gustedt [this message]
2014-08-12 16:01 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-12 19:09 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-12 21:18 ` Rich Felker
2014-08-13 6:43 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-13 7:19 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-08-06 9:50 ` Rich Felker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1407827079.15134.109.camel@eris.loria.fr \
--to=jens.gustedt@inria.fr \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).