This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][BZ #16159] Detecting that recursive mutex recursed.
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:02:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC][BZ #16159] Detecting that recursive mutex recursed.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131113134608 dot GA5437 at popelka dot ms dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20131113181257 dot GT24286 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20131113190356 dot GA7913 at domone dot podge> <20131113193746 dot GV24286 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:37:46PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:03:56PM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:12:57PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:46:08PM +0100, Ondrej Bilka wrote:
> > Alternative solution that I wanted to avoid is to use additional
> > thread-local variable to detect signals. A count would be maintained by
> > atomic increment/decrement.
> > Do you know how to generate cmpxchgb instruction without lock prefix as
> > there is no need of interthread synchronization?
> Why do you need any atomicity or asm? In principle, read, modify,
> write is perfectly valid for this usage as long as the write is atomic
> (e.g. not using 2 16-bit writes to implement a 32-bit write). If
> you're not happy assumin 32-bit writes are atomic, then yes, a little
> more work would be required.
You cannot do that as you are at mercy of compiler. With volatile
variable gcc will not use read-modify-write. Without that gcc in
int x = 0;
happily optimizes x++ and x-- away.
> But I'd be more concerned about the cost of TLS access. Unfortunately
> this also applies with recursive mutexes, since they need TLS access
> to get their own thread id and record an owner.
You use TLS because it is faster than atomic instructions.
> On some archs (older
> MIPS where the instruction to get the thread pointer traps into
> kernelspace, and probably some relevant ARM variants) reading the
> thread pointer can be expensive, and I question whether this expense
> can be justified in malloc. I'd rather just abandon aims to make
> malloc AS-safe and focus on its performance, and have code that needs
> malloc-like functionality with AS-safety use another interface.
Improving malloc performance means using TLS. Currently malloc is
limited in small sizes by slowness of atomic instructions.
> P.S. glibc still officially supports user replacement of malloc, so
> nothing in libc is justified in assuming properties of its own malloc
> implementation like AS-safety.
In theory yes, in practice we want to debug these issues, not cause
incomprehensible corruption long after signal was handled.