From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 16 16:46:04 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D2137B401 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F9843FA3 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:46:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h3GNk3Bg019771; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (eischen@localhost)h3GNk2nG019768; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:46:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: David Xu In-Reply-To: <004c01c30470$9e36ddf0$0701a8c0@tiger> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libpthread patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 23:46:05 -0000 On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, David Xu wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Eischen" > To: "David Xu" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:05 AM > Subject: Re: libpthread patch > > > > There's a new patch available at: > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/kse/libpthread.diffs > > > > This passes all the ACE tests that libc_r passes, with the > > exception of Cached_Conn_Test. > > > > It also seems to work with KDE, konqueror, kwrite, kmail, etc. > > I don't have mozilla built (and am dreading trying to), but > > it would be interesting to see if it works with that. > > > > Cool! > > > If no-one has any objections, I'd like to commit this > > soon. I'll let David review and comment to it first. > > > > David, I didn't add critical regions to _thr_alloc() and > > _thr_free(). I think that whenever they are used, we > > are already in a critical region or operating on an upcall. > > > > Hmm, I don't like to put malloc calling under critical section, > it is better to put it under a lock, otherwise this would cause dead > lock. suppose that an user thread is calling malloc(), and heap manager > got malloc spinlock, then it does somethings and the thread is preempted > by upcall from kernel, now UTS switches to another thread, that thread > starts to call pthread_create, so UTS kernel enters a critical region first, > and calls malloc, this would cause dead lock, because UTS is under critical > region and no context switch could happen. Hmm, I see what you mean. We could put spinlock in critical region and that may solve the problem, but I eventually want to see spinlocks go away and replace the very few that we have in libc with mutexes. > Also I don't like thr_free under critical region, I think a GC thread is still > needed to recycle zombie thread and free extra memory, UTS kernel > should't be blocked by user thread. Despite this, I think the patch should > be committed. I'll work on adding the GC thread back in. I really wanted to get rid of it so that the KSE can exit when threadcount == 0, but now we've got to make allowances for the extra thread in the main KSEG. Keep looking at the patch for anything else you might see. We still need a way to deliver signals and look for async cancel points in CPU-bound threads. The attempt to add a signal frame with signalcontext() doesn't seem to work which is why it is commented out. -- Dan Eischen