Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:25:40 +0800 From: Fengwei yin <yfw.bsd@gmail.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: jack.ren@intel.com, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: About the memory barrier in BSD libc Message-ID: <CAPHpMu=Lv_zYqQEjbpSpJwYsmRr04714%2B_-2jhPqXdYj_LNgvQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120424181302.GB2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20120423084120.GD76983@zxy.spb.ru> <201204241343.q3ODhe2C032683@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <20120424140348.GY2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <201204241110.14017.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120424165842.GZ2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <201204241800.q3OI0X89007384@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <20120424181302.GB2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Konstantin Belousov
<kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Martin Simmons wrote:
>> >>>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:58:42 +0300, Konstantin Belousov said:
>> >
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Lock the spinlock used to protect __sglue list walk in
>> > + * __sfp(). The __sfp() uses fp->_flags == 0 test as an
>> > + * indication of the unused FILE.
>> > + *
>> > + * Taking the lock prevents possible compiler or processor
>> > + * reordering of the writes performed before the final _flags
>> > + * cleanup, making sure that we are done with the FILE before
>> > + * it is considered available.
>> > + */
>> > + STDIO_THREAD_LOCK();
>> > fp->_flags = 0; /* Release this FILE for reuse. */
>> > + STDIO_THREAD_UNLOCK();
>> > FUNLOCKFILE(fp);
>> > return (r);
>>
>> Is that assumption about reordering correct? I.e. is FreeBSD's spinlock a
>> two-way barrier?
>>
>> It isn't unusual for the locking primitive to be a one-way barrier, i.e. (from
>> Linux kernel memory-barriers.txt) "Memory operations that occur before a LOCK
>> operation may appear to happen after it completes." See also acq and rel in
>> atomic(9).
> Taking the lock prevents the __sfp from iterating the list until the
> spinlock is released. Since release makes sure that all previous memory
> operations become visible, the acquire in the spinlock lock provides
> the neccesary guarentee.
IMHO, the lock to me is too heavy here. What about this patch?
NOTE: patch just show thoughts. I didn't even check build checking.
diff --git a/lib/libc/stdio/fclose.c b/lib/libc/stdio/fclose.c
index f0629e8..a26f944 100644
--- a/lib/libc/stdio/fclose.c
+++ b/lib/libc/stdio/fclose.c
@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$");
#include "namespace.h"
#include <errno.h>
+#include <machine/atomic.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "un-namespace.h"
@@ -65,6 +66,7 @@ fclose(FILE *fp)
FREELB(fp);
fp->_file = -1;
fp->_r = fp->_w = 0; /* Mess up if reaccessed. */
+ wmb();
fp->_flags = 0; /* Release this FILE for reuse. */
FUNLOCKFILE(fp);
return (r);
diff --git a/lib/libc/stdio/findfp.c b/lib/libc/stdio/findfp.c
index 89c0536..03b2945 100644
--- a/lib/libc/stdio/findfp.c
+++ b/lib/libc/stdio/findfp.c
@@ -129,9 +129,16 @@ __sfp()
*/
THREAD_LOCK();
for (g = &__sglue; g != NULL; g = g->next) {
- for (fp = g->iobs, n = g->niobs; --n >= 0; fp++)
- if (fp->_flags == 0)
+ for (fp = g->iobs, n = g->niobs; --n >= 0; fp++) {
+ int __flags = fp->_flags;
+ rmb();
+ /*
+ * If could see __flags is zero here, we are sure
+ * the cleanup in fclose is done.
+ */
+ if (__flags == 0)
goto found;
+ }
}
THREAD_UNLOCK(); /* don't hold lock while malloc()ing. */
if ((g = moreglue(NDYNAMIC)) == NULL)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPHpMu=Lv_zYqQEjbpSpJwYsmRr04714%2B_-2jhPqXdYj_LNgvQ>