[PATCH 2/2] manual: Document __libc_single_threaded

Adhemerval Zanella adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org
Wed Jun 3 17:52:05 GMT 2020



On 03/06/2020 12:48, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Adhemerval Zanella:
> 
>>> I'm going to add this to the manual as an implementation note, after the
>>> first example:
>>>
>>> @c Note: No memory order on __libc_single_threaded.  The
>>> @c implementation must ensure that exit of the critical
>>> @c (second-to-last) thread happens-before setting
>>> @c __libc_single_threaded to true.  Otherwise, acquire MO might be
>>> @c needed for reading the variable in some scenarios, and that would
>>> @c completely defeat its purpose.
>>
>> The comments is sound, but I still think we should properly document 
>> that this initial version does not attempt to update 
>> __libc_single_threaded on pthread_join or detach exit and maybe also
>> the brief explanation you added on why this semantic was chose (to
>> avoid the requirement of more strict MO).
> 
> I'm concerned that if we make the implementation too transparent,
> programmers will read the explanation and say, “gosh, I better assign
> true to __libc_single_threaded after I joined the last thread”.  That's
> not something we want to encourage.

In fact from your discussion with Rich I think we really should be
transparent about its semantic, why he have chose the qualifiers 
(whether we use volatile or not), how glibc updates internally, and 
the expected usage patterns (for instance program are not expected
to change its value).

> 
>>> For detached thread exits, this kind of synchronization may not be
>>> easily obtainable in all cases.  I don't think we can do it on the
>>> on-thread exit path because the kernel will perform certain actions
>>> afterwards (like robust mutex updates), no matter how late we do it.  I
>>> guess we could perhaps piggy-back on the stack reclamation mechanism.
>>
>> It seems that robust mutexes updates are indeed a problem, but I am not
>> sure if CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID clear helps here.  It signals the thread
>> is done with the memory synchronization, but the stack cache is not
>> really updated.  Maybe an extra clone3 flag ?
> 
> I thought we might piggy-back on the work that free_stacks does.  But
> the code is sufficiently convoluted that I'm no longer sure.

I am not sure that the free_stack pattern is really helpful without some
memory synchronization, such as SYS_membarrier. My idea of the clone3
flag would be similar to CLONE_CHILD_{CLEAR,SET}TID where kernel does
the heavy lifting of the memory synchronization to update the total
number of threads.



More information about the Libc-alpha mailing list