Re: [PATCH] Bug #20116: Clarify barrier-like and mutex-like behaviours of PD->lock.

[Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 07:58 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 02:07 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > 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.

... is being used both similar to a one-shot semaphore and,
subsequently, as a 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

s/, in effect a barrier//
s/barrier-like effect is used/semaphore-like use is employed/

> >>>> +   synchronizing the parent and child.  After startup the lock is used
> >>>> +   like a mutex to create a critical region during which a single owner

critical section

> >>>> +   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?
> 
> Yes, I'm mostly fine with it.  I wouldn't call it a “POSIX barrier” and 
> “POSIX mutex” though, it clearly is not.
> 
> Maybe use “as a barrier (acquired and released by different threads and 
> as a mutex (acquired and released by the same thread, providing mutual 
> exclusion)”.

It's not a barrier actually, but closer to a semaphore (the parent does
not wait for the child to arrive, but continues immediately after
posting...).