pthread_rwlock_rdlock return in low priority
Xi Ruoyao
xry111@xry111.site
Tue Mar 7 17:09:23 GMT 2023
On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 20:23 +0800, abush wang via Libc-alpha wrote:
> hi, Riegel
>
> I have noticed reader will return directly on fast-path in
> pthread_rwlock_common.c
>
> > * /* We have registered as a reader, so if we are in a read phase, we have
> *>* acquired a read lock. This is also the reader--reader fast-path.
> *>* Even if there is a primary writer, we just return. If writers are to
> *>* be preferred and we are the only active reader, we could try to enter a
> *>* write phase to let the writer proceed. This would be okay because we
> *>* cannot have acquired the lock previously as a reader (which could result
> *>* in deadlock if we would wait for the primary writer to run). However,
> *>* this seems to be a corner case and handling it specially not
> be worth the
> *>* complexity. */
> *>* if (__glibc_likely ((r & PTHREAD_RWLOCK_WRPHASE) == 0))
> *>* return 0;
> *
> However, there is a situation:
> main, thread_wr, thread_rd.
>
> SCHED_FIFO priority:
> main > thread_wr > thread_rd
> main first acquires read lock, then create thread_wr which will
> block on the lock.
> Next, main creates thread_rd. this thread will acquires read lock
> on fast-path even
> though it has a lower priority compared to thread_wr.
>
> You can get demo from the following
> repository:https://github.com/emscripten-core/posixtestsuite.git
> ./conformance/interfaces/pthread_rwlock_rdlock/2-1.c
>
> According to "man -M man-pages-posix-2017/ 3p pthread_rwlock_rdlock"
>
> > * DESCRIPTION
> *>* The pthread_rwlock_rdlock() function shall apply a read lock to the
> *>* read-write lock referenced by rwlock. The calling thread acquires the
> *>* read lock if a writer does not hold the lock and there are no
> *>* writers blocked on the lock.
> *>>* If the Thread Execution Scheduling option is supported, and the
> *>* threads involved in the lock are executing with the scheduling
> *>* policies SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR, the calling thread shall not acquire
> *>* the lock if a writer holds the lock or if writers of higher or equal
> *>* priority are blocked on the lock; other‐ wise, the calling thread
> *>* shall acquire the lock.
> *
> I was wondering that whether this
>
> , and whether
> this posix standard should be enforced.
Already declared as WONTFIX several years ago:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13701.
And a more general ticket about "POSIX violations in corner cases":
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25619.
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list