From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Resuming work on new semaphore
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:03:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150424150341.GP17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.11.1504241235400.2677@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:23:27PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Perhaps this can be patched up by saturating sem_getvalue's result? In
> > the case where the overflow happens it's transient, right? I think
> > that means discounting the overflow would be valid. But I'll need to
> > think about it more...
>
> Hm, can't agree here. This whole line of discussion stems from attempt to
> align timedwait/trywait/getvalue behavior in light of dead waiters, which are
> indistinguishable from preempted waiters.
I don't think dead waiters are a solvable problem with this design,
but they're a minor problem until you hit overflow.
> If "it's transient" claim can be
> made, it also can be used as a reason not to modify getvalue to look at val[1].
No, because you can interrupt a waiter with a signal handler and the
"transient" state becomes something you can synchronize with and
observe and thus no longer transient. That was the motivation for
needing to count the pending wakes.
> > With that said, my inclination right now is that we should hold off on
> > trying to commit the new semaphore for this release cycle. I've been
> > aiming for this month and just about everything else is in order for
> > release, but the semaphore rabbit-hole keeps going deeper and I think
> > we need to work through this properly. I hope that's not too much of a
> > disappointment.
>
> Ack; thankfully I don't feel disappointment in this case, this discussion has
> been quite entertaining. When I proposed my modification I felt it was very
> intuitive. What I did not grasp back then is that the definition of a waiter
> is not solid.
>
> How do you interpret the following?
>
> 1. Semaphore initialized to 0. There's only one thread.
> 2. alarm(1)
> 3. sem_wait()
> .... (in SIGALRM handler)
> 4. sem_post()
> 5. sem_getvalue()
>
> May getvalue be 0 here? At step 4, can the thread possibly "be a waiter"
> on the semaphore?
Here steps 4 and 5 are UB (calling AS-unsafe functions from AS
context). But you can achieve the same with another thread observing
entry to the signal handler in a valid way (e.g. via posting of a
second sem from the signal handler).
With that problem solved, I think it's valid at this point to observe
a value of 0 or 1. But if 0 is observed, sem_trywait would have to
fail, and sem_wait or sem_timedwait could return only in the case of
an error. This is why returning 0 does not seem to be practical -- I
don't know a way to let the existing suspended waiter take the wake
without allowing new waiters to steal it (and thus expose
inconsistency).
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-24 15:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-02 1:30 Rich Felker
2015-04-02 7:42 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-02 15:26 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-02 21:39 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-02 23:14 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-05 14:07 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-05 14:17 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-05 19:02 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-05 20:03 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-05 20:23 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-05 21:07 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-11 22:22 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-23 16:06 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-23 18:24 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-23 20:01 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-24 2:46 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-24 10:23 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-24 15:03 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2015-04-24 15:47 ` Alexander Monakov
2015-04-24 15:59 ` 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=20150424150341.GP17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--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).