Hi,
I tried fixing that last problem (semaphore leak when multiple threads are
cancelled and the initialization is never completed) but it appears the
reference counting approach is inherently flawed. So I had to re-implement
the whole thing from scratch. This implementation uses MCS locks which are
not only fast but also require no clean-up thus avoiding the above problem. 
The implementation of MCS locks, which I had to build, probably deserves a
module (.c and .h) of its own since we may want to use them in other places.
This implementation has passed all the tests (again on a single CPU only)
and I hope it is finally bug-free now.

Pls, let me know what you think.
--vlad

PS.
Sorry it takes me so many iterations. I feel like I have been spamming you
with too many versions of this routine.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com [mailto:pthreads-win32-
> owner@sources.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Vladimir Kliatchko
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:30 AM
> To: 'Ross Johnson'
> Cc: 'Gottlob Frege'; pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: RE: New pthread_once implementation
> 
> What do you think of the attached implementation? I am still analyzing it,
> but it passes the tests and appears to be free of that problem. It does
> have
> one minor glitch though:
> If two threads come in, the semaphore is created. If both are cancelled
> and
> no new calls a made to finish the job, the semaphore is never destroyed.
> I am not sure how big a deal this is.
> 
> Re. optimizations: Great, I will try to do something.
> 
> Thnx,
> --vlad
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com [mailto:pthreads-win32-
> > owner@sources.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ross Johnson
> > Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 9:55 AM
> > To: Vladimir Kliatchko
> > Cc: 'Gottlob Frege'; Pthreads-Win32 list
> > Subject: RE: New pthread_once implementation
> >
> > On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 06:51 -0400, Vladimir Kliatchko wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com [mailto:pthreads-
> win32-
> > > > owner@sources.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ross Johnson
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:48 PM
> > > > To: Vladimir Kliatchko
> > > > Cc: 'Gottlob Frege'; Pthreads-Win32 list
> > > > Subject: RE: New pthread_once implementation
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 21:30 -0400, Vladimir Kliatchko wrote:
> > > > > Nice catch. Let me see if I can fix it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the same problem exists in the currently released event-
> > based
> > > > > implementation (cvs version 1.16):
> > > > >
> > > > > thread1 comes in, start initing
> > > > > thread2 creates event, starts waiting
> > > > > thread3 comes in starts waiting
> > > > > thread1 is cancelled, signals event
> > > > > thread2 wakes up, proceeds to the point right before the
> resetEvent
> > > > > thread3 wakes up, closes event handle
> > > > > thread2 resets closed handle
> > > >
> > > > Relies on HANDLE uniqueness and assumes that an error will result.
> > This
> > > > is why the 2.6.0 version (and earlier) checks the return code and
> > > > restores Win32 LastError if necessary - for GetLastError
> transparency.
> > >
> > > Does Windows guarantee that the handles are not reused? What happens
> if
> > a
> > > thread closes a handle while another thread is blocked on it? Is any
> of
> > this
> > > in Microsoft documentation? Consider the following scenario for the
> > > event-based implementation:
> >
> > Well, apparently they're not unique when recycled, so there is a bug
> > here to fix in both versions:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-
> > us/dngenlib/html/msdn_handles1.asp
> > [Under "Native Windows NT Objects"]
> > "Unlike the handles that are maintained by the Win32 USER and GDI
> > subsystem components, handles to native objects under Windows NT are not
> > unique; that is, upon destruction of an object, the corresponding handle
> > may be recycled and will look exactly like the handle to the destroyed
> > object."
> >
> > But they are local to the process, rather than system wide if that
> > helps.
> >
> > > > > Also, regarding my previous comment to Ross about very high cost
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > InterlockedExchangeAdd for MBR:
> > > > > I did some simple benchmarking. Running pthread_once 50,000,000 on
> > my
> > > > pretty
> > > > > slow single CPU machine takes about 2.1 seconds. Replacing
> > > > > InterlockedExchangeAdd with simple read brings it down to 0.6
> > seconds.
> > > > This
> > > > > looks significant.
> > > >
> > > > Using the PTW32_INTERLOCKED_COMPARE_EXCHANGE macro as in your latest
> > (in
> > > > CVS) version and building the library for inlined functions (nmake
> VC-
> > > > inlined) and x86 architecture causes customised versions of
> > > > InterlockedCompareExchange to be used, and this results in inlined
> > asm.
> > > > Same for PTW32_INTERLOCKED_EXCHANGE.
> > > >
> > > > Also, on single-CPU x86, the library dynamically switches to using
> > > > 'cmpxchg' rather than 'lock cmpxchg' to avoid locking the bus. This
> > > > appears to match what the kernel32.dll versions do. On non-x86
> > > > architectures the kernel32.dll versions are called, with call
> > overhead.
> > > >
> > > > PTW32_INTERLOCKED_EXCHANGE_ADD could be added, as could other
> > > > architectures. See ptw32_InterlockedCompareExchange.c
> > >
> > > I have rerun my benchmark with VC-inline. The difference is now less
> > > significant 0.9 vs 0.6 but still noticeable. I guess cmpxchg even
> > without
> > > locking is quite expensive. On multi-CPU systems the difference should
> > be
> > > much higher due to the time it takes to lock the bus and to the
> > contention
> > > it may cause. It sounded as if you did not care much to try to
> optimize
> > it.
> > > I did not mean to suggest that we have to do it right now either. I
> just
> > > wanted to get your opinion on whether we want to deal with this in the
> > > future.
> >
> > By all means include any optimisation you think is worthwhile. I was
> > just pointing out that the difference isn't necessarily 2.1 v 0.6.
> >