From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] [timer] timer_delete function async problem
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:27:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200215172726.GP1663@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19e6adf5.abdf.170487c3154.Coremail.zuotingyang@126.com>
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 06:54:23PM +0800, zuotina wrote:
> Hi everrone
>
>
> Problem:
> When I created SIGEV_THREAD timer, then start it by timer_settime. like this
> the notify callback in the helper thread 'start' will be run when timer expiration.
> But when I delete the timer, the notify callback will be run all the same.
> This is not what i want. In actual use, I encountered a problem.
>
>
> I found that the 'timer_delete' function returns immediately after called.
> The timer may not perform the delete action.
Logically the timer is deleted before the timer_delete function
returns. If the handler thread is still running a handler at the time,
that will necessarily continue intil it exits; the specification makes
no provision for timer_delete doing anything to already-running
handler threads. Since the operations are inherently unordered, it's
possible that a new handler physically starts running after the call
to timer_delete is made but before the signal is sent; as far as I can
tell this is not observable by the application (since there is no
ordering).
> In addition, the SIGEV_SIGNAL timer can be deleted after called the function.
> So i think the function has different semantics for different types.
But doing so does not stop the signal handler from running (and
fundamentally couldn't). So I don't understand what your concern is.
Is it just that the kernel timer resource still exists until the
handler thread finishes? I don't think that's visible to the
application except possibly in limiting the number of timers that can
be created.
> Is there a way to implement synchronously ?
At some point I plan to drop use of kernel timer resources entirely
for SIGEV_THREAD timers, since they can be implemented *more easily*,
with fewer hacks (no SIGTIMER at all! we can get rid of this reserved
RT signal) with just a loop performing clock_nanosleep. If/when this
change is made, there will be no kernel timer resource involed at all,
so if I understand what you're asking, I guess that would give the
behavior you want. (?)
If I'm not understanding what you're asking for, could you send a
minimal testcase program demonstrating how you observe a behavior you
consider wrong without the test invoking any UB?
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-15 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-15 10:54 zuotina
2020-02-15 12:46 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-02-15 17:27 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2020-02-17 7:12 ` [musl] " zuotina
2020-02-17 15:15 ` 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=20200215172726.GP1663@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).