Re: [PATCH] RFC: futex: make futex_lock_pi interruptible

[Darren Hart]

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 30 October 2009, Darren Hart wrote:
> > Darren Hart wrote:
> > This appears to work fine. Can anyone think of a reason why this is an unsafe
> > thing to do? I'll have to create a much more elaborate test case and review
> > the glibc code of course to make sure the glibc mutex state isn't compromised.
>
> The only reason I can see against it is the need to use one of the
> rt signal numbers from library code, which may conflict with other
> users of the signal. Being able to avoid a signal altogether would
> be really nice, as in the futex_cancel extension you mentioned.

For the reason you mention, consumption of a signal number, the 
futex_cancel extension was how I originally set out to tackle this. 
However, Thomas and Peter both seemed to feel that the signal approach 
was a more standard way of interrupting a unix system call. One trick to 
the futex_cancel approach will be identifying which thread to cancel - 
since no other futex operation is thread specific. I suspect just 
overloading one of the argument to pass a TID would address that nicely. 
 This would allow us to return ECANCELED from the kernel, which I think 
is a much more direct implementation.

Peter and Thomas, could you comment on why the signal approach might be 
preferred over the futex_cancel extension?

> > /* Need some kind of per-thread variable here */
> > jmp_buf env;
> > pthread_mutex_t mutex;
>
> Maybe instead of per-thread variables (which should work
> fine), you could do
>
> typedef struct {
> 	jmp_buf env;
> 	pthread_mutex_t mutex;
> } interruptible_mutex_t;


I don't quite follow. There will be a 1:many relationship between 
mutex:threads, but there should be a 1:1 relationship between 
threads:env. Since multiple threads can block on one mutex, the above 
struct wouldn't provide the necessary number of env to set the jmp point 
for each one.... am I misunderstanding your suggestion?

> > 	/* ensure the child has blocked on the lock */
> > 	sleep(1);
>
> In a real application, you might want to add some logic to avoid
> this kind of race. For the test case, you probably need to do it
> with the sleep.

This would likely need to be handled within glibc, just as it manages 
the sequence counters for the condvars to deal with wake-up races.

--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/