public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Sergey Fokin" <>
Subject: Re: Pthread-win32 races?
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:26:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>


> The library is working correctly since sem_destroy() is returning the
> error EBUSY as required and documented at:
> This is also in accordance with the Single Unix Specification. If it was
> hanging your program rather than returning the error then that would be
> a problem.

The sem_destroy function sets errno to the following error code on error:
EBUSY if some threads are currently blocked waiting on the semaphore.

But there's obviously no threads waiting on semaphore, is there?

> By the way, in your sample code you don't check the return code from the
> sem_post(), but the semaphore could already be destroyed at that point.

It couldn't (shouldn't, because actually it does). Because semaphore
is destroyed only after sem_wait(), but sem_wait() returns (should
return) only after sem_post() succeeds. Did I understood right?

> It would be better in this and similar cases to call sem_destroy() after
> the call to pthread_join(), or at least after you can guarantee that the
> semaphore is no longer required by any child threads.

In this example I can destroy semaphore after pthread_join(). But in
my program logic is more complicated and sem_post()'ing thread doesn't
finish after sem_post(). And again the same question: Does sem_post()
perform atomic access to the semaphore or I should perform additional
synchronisation to access the semaphore? Synchronizing access to
semaphore looks strange, don't you think so?

This quotation is from linux sem_post manual:

       !sem_post!  atomically  increases the count of the semaphore pointed to
       by |sem|. This function never blocks and can safely be  used  in  asyn-
       chronous signal handlers.

So, I think supplied code must be correct according to manual.

> A sem_t "handle" is not required to be unique in time, so it's possible
> to destroy a semaphore and init a new one having another purpose
> altogether, which then by chance occupies the same physical memory
> location, i.e. has the same "handle" (in pthreads-win32 this is just the
> pointer to the struct in memory), so a sema op somewhere may not fail
> even though, logically, it is no longer accessing the semaphore it
> should be, and the application may now be mysteriously badly behaved and
> difficult to debug.

Yes, I understand this. And there's no chance to accidentally access
destroyed semaphore.


  reply	other threads:[~2006-12-13  9:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-12 12:27 Sergey Fokin
2006-12-13  8:39 ` Ross Johnson
2006-12-13  9:26   ` Sergey Fokin [this message]
2006-12-13 14:26     ` Ross Johnson
2006-12-20  2:08 ` Ross Johnson
2006-12-12 20:12 Ye Liu

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be 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).