* pthread_rwlock_rdlock return in low priority
@ 2023-03-07 12:23 abush wang
2023-03-07 17:09 ` Xi Ruoyao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: abush wang @ 2023-03-07 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: triegel, abushwang via Libc-alpha, adhemerval.zanella
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2233 bytes --]
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.
Thanks
abushwang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: pthread_rwlock_rdlock return in low priority
2023-03-07 12:23 pthread_rwlock_rdlock return in low priority abush wang
@ 2023-03-07 17:09 ` Xi Ruoyao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Xi Ruoyao @ 2023-03-07 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: abush wang, triegel, abushwang via Libc-alpha, adhemerval.zanella
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-07 17:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-07 12:23 pthread_rwlock_rdlock return in low priority abush wang
2023-03-07 17:09 ` Xi Ruoyao
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).