[PATCH] Bug #20116: Clarify barrier-like and mutex-like behaviours of PD->lock.
Carlos O'Donell
carlos@redhat.com
Tue Mar 14 01:07:00 GMT 2017
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.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list