[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#4943) tpool.c pause vs. finish
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> email@example.com writes:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> * When a thread is finishing, make it go active for context_reset().
>>> Should make slapi module destructors safer, and I don't see that it
>>> can hurt.
>> I don't understand this.
> Let me dig a bit back in the ITS...
> "context_reset() can call connection_fake_destroy(), which via
> slapi_int_free_object_extensions() calls slapi module destructors,
> which can do who-knows-what."
context_reset() can only be called from the main thread. It can (must) never be
called by anything running from the pool.
>>> * Scheduling: If several threads call pool_pause(), then once there is a
>>> pause tpool does not schedule them all. They could get handled then,
>>> or another thread could undo the pause so tpool would wait to pause
>>> again. Is that deliberate?
>> I don't understand the question. The point of the pause is to prevent
>> any other thread (in the pool) from running. Why should tpool schedule
>> any other threads at this point?
> Two threads call pool_pause(). Eventually the pool gets paused, and one
> pool_pause() call returns. When that thread calls pool_resume(), the
> other thread waiting in pool_pause() may or may not get scheduled.
OK, that sounds like a bug.
>>> - pool_context() breaks if several ldap_pvt_thread_t bit patterns can
>>> represent the same thread ID: TID_HASH() would give different hashes
>>> for the same thread, and pool_context() stops searching when it hits
>>> a slot with ctx == NULL. (My previous bug report was a bit wrong.)
>> How can a single thread ID be represented by multiple bit patterns?
> A struct/union with padding bytes seems the least unlikely possibility.
Any implementation that leaves uninitialized padding bytes would be a bug.
Tools like valgrind would barf all over them.
> A pointer in hardware where several address representations map to the
> same physical address, and the compiler handles that by normalizing
> pointers when they are compared/subtracted. Like DOS "huge" pointers
> would have been if the compiler normalized them when comparing them
> instead of when incrementing/decrementing them. 20-bit address bus,
> 32-bit pointers, physical address = 16 * <segment half of pointer> +
> <offset half of pointer>.
Nobody voluntarily uses such memory models today. The very mention of "DOS"
invalidates this discussion since there is no threading environment there.
>>> The best fix would be to use use real thread-specific data instead.
>>> Just one key with the ctx for now, that minimizes the changes. OTOH
>>> it also means we'll do thread-specific key lookup twice - first in
>>> pthread to get the ctx, and then in ltu_key to find our data.
>>> Anyway, I said I'd do that later but might as well get on with it,
>>> at least for pthreads. Except I don't know if that's OS-dependent
>>> enough that it should wait for RE24?
>> The best fix may be to just use the address of the thread's stack as the
>> thread ID. That's actually perfect for our purpose.
> How does a function called from somewhere inside the thread know that
> address? That's almost what the user context is, and thus what
> thread_keys maps the thread ID to.
It requires some degree of machine-dependence, which is why I never bothered to
code it. The principle is simple though - all of our thread stacks are some
multiple of 1MB in size. Take the address of any local variable, mask off the
low 20 bits, and you have a unique thread ID (+/- some additional
masking/shifting based on the actual thread stack size).
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/