public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/110016] Possible miscodegen when inlining std::condition_variable::wait predicate causes deadlock Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 20:38:54 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-110016-4-8DvLobUCMh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-110016-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110016 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The condition variable uses that mutex to synchronize. If you just modify the atomic variable _without locking and unlocking the mutex_ then you are not synchronizing with the condition variable. If you don't use the mutex for the producer thread, then (as Andrew described) the consumer can check the atomic, see that the condition is not yet true, and decide it needs to wait. Then the producer makes the condition true and signals using notify_all but that is missed because the consumer thread isn't waiting yet, then the consumer starts to wait. But because it already missed the notify_all call, it waits forever. Using the mutex in the producer does not just hide the bug, it fixes it properly. If the producer updates the atomic while the mutex is held then it's impossible for the condition to become true between the consumer checking it and starting to wait. Those two things (checking the condition and starting to wait) become atomic w.r.t the producer. It's not possible to get this interleaving if you use the mutex correctly: consumer checks condition producer makes condition true producer notifies consumer waits Instead you either get: consumer checks condition and waits producer makes condition true and notifies, waking the consumer or: producer makes condition true (and notifies, but consumer isn't waiting) consumer sees condition is true and never waits
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-29 20:38 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-05-28 21:11 [Bug c++/110016] New: [12/13/14] " amy at amyspark dot me 2023-05-28 21:44 ` [Bug libstdc++/110016] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 0:47 ` [Bug libstdc++/110016] " amy at amyspark dot me 2023-05-29 1:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 1:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 1:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 1:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 1:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 1:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 1:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 6:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 13:30 ` rachel at rachelmant dot com 2023-05-29 14:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 15:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 15:18 ` rachel at rachelmant dot com 2023-05-29 15:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 20:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-110016-4-8DvLobUCMh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).