This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Bug #20116: Clarify barrier-like and mutex-like behaviours of PD->lock.
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:07:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bug #20116: Clarify barrier-like and mutex-like behaviours of PD->lock.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <3d358d5a-66eb-cf97-ad98-16061a838f1a@redhat.com> <be27bfc1-e860-4afa-3193-9f246a6dcc0d@redhat.com> <116d8b2d-dad1-c5f6-8cf7-59e0c969381d@redhat.com>
On 02/14/2017 06:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 07:49 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 02/13/2017 02:29 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> + It is important to point out that PD->lock is being used as a POSIX
>>> + barrier and a POSIX mutex. The lock is taken in the parent to force
>>> + the child to wait, and then the child releases the lock, in effect a
>>> + barrier. However, this barrier-like effect is used only for
>>> + synchronizing the parent and child. After startup the lock is used
>>> + like a mutex to create a critical region during which a single owner
>>> + modifies the thread parameters.
>>
>> I had missed that the lock was reused for the scheduler parameter.
>>
>> But the current code still does not make sense to me. Why do we need to
>> keep a copy of the scheduler parameters at all? Is this just a cache to
>> improve performance, similar to what we used to do for the PID?
>
> The cache is used in the implementation of PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT mutexes. There are data races:
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21160
>
> I expect that the use of ->lock to protect these members will go away eventually.
Yes, it's used in tpp.
Given your current understand is the above additional text sufficient
to clarify the situation?
--
Cheers,
Carlos.