Re: FreeBSD's Google Summer of Code 2016

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 07:25:47PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 07:14:34PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 03/05/16 18:32, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 05:41:25PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > >>First of all, great to hear there is interest on the musl side too.
> > >>
> > >>I think the biggest precedent of porting linux-oriented C libraries
> > >>came from Debian's kFreeBSD. We accomodated a little by for them
> > >>by defining __FreeBSD_kernel__ in sys/param.h.
> > >>
> > >>While using the optional linux-abi futex in FreeBSD could be an option,
> > >>it is not really the cleanest option. The Debian guys did a port of
> > >>NPTL using regular pthreads:
> > >>
> > 
> > Of course I ahould have meant "based on regular FreeBSD kernel services".
> > 
> > >>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.ports.bsd/11702
> > >>
> > >>I am certain this will require more research but it would be useful
> > >>for other ports as well.
> > >
> > 
> > We could ask Petr Salinger for the details, but I am pretty sure
> > FreeBSD has the required functionality natively.
> > 
> > >Glibc/NPTL has a lot of what I'd call "gratuitous abstraction" (like
> > >the lll stuff) in their pthread primitives which makes this
> > >"possible". I call it gratuitous because it's really really hard to
> > >achieve correct implementations of the pthread sync primitives that
> > >don't have serious corner-case bugs, and it's unlikely that their
> > >abstractions actually suffice to make correct alternate
> > >implementations.
> > >
> > >musl does not have any such abstraction. We require a compare-and-swap
> > >operation or equivalent on which arbitrary atomic operations can be
> > >constructed, a futex or equivalent operation that's roughly
> > >while(*addr==expected) sleep(), and implement all the sync primitives
> > >just once on top of these.
> > >
> > 
> > I am not a threading expert (or even a CS guy), but it sounds like
> > mutex(9) with condvar(9) would do [1]:
> 
> No, they don't satisfy the needs of musl; they have their own
> additional storage requirements and are probably not AS-safe. It might
> be possible to use them to implement a userspace-emulated futex queue
> (only if they are AS-safe), but I don't see a way to extend that to
> the process-shared case.

Actually these look like kernelspace APIs, not userspace, unless I'm
mistaken. In that case I don't see how they're relevant/usable. Is tht
correct?

Rich