Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:54:50 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using pthread_once() in libc Message-ID: <200911191254.50902.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0911191204120.8401@sea.ntplx.net> References: <200911191030.14151.jhb@freebsd.org> <200911191202.30738.jhb@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0911191204120.8401@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:09:33 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 19 November 2009 11:48:54 am Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would like to provide a pthread_once()-like facility in libc that library
> >>> bits can use to initialize data safely rather than trying to home-roll their
> >>> own variants (see the recent commit to stdtime in libc). Ideally what I
> >>> would like to do is have libc use the "real" pthread_once() when libthr is
> >>> linked in and fall back to a simple stub without libthr linked in. I know we
> >>> already do something like this for _spinlock() and friends. My question is
> >>> what is the most correct way to do this? Should libc grow a new _once()
> >>> symbol ala _spinlock() that is a weak symbol to a stub version and
> >>> pthread_once() in thr_once.c would override that, or should there be a
> >>> _pthread_once() in libc that is a stub in place of the current stub_zero? I
> >>> noticed a comment in thr_spinlock.c saying the spinlock stuff is kept for
> >>> backwards compat. Does this mean that for the future we would like to expose
> >>> pthread symbols directly in libc? Meaning would we rather have libc export a
> >>> pthread_once() and that ideally libc would be using pthread_mutex_lock/unlock
> >>> instead of _spinlock/unlock?
> >>
> >> pthread_once() is already a stub in libc that gets overloaded with the
> >> real thing when libthr is linked. See libc/gen/_pthread_stubs.c.
> >> Isn't that what you want or does it not serve your purpose?
> >
> > Hmm, the libc stub will never run the init routine. I would like to do
> > something like this:
>
> Well, I suppose you could do that. But what happens if libthr gets
> dlopen()'d and your once function needs to initialize a mutex or
> something that can only be properly done by a real threads library?
> Can we envision a scenario where that would be a problem?
Hmmm, so I guess __is_threaded is how the dlopen() case is handled now for
mutex lock/unlock as that avoids resolving the symbol until pthread_create()
has been invoked? I guess then we could take an approach that works
something like this:
/* libc-internal function */
int
_once(pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine)(void))
{
if (__is_threaded)
return (_pthread_once(once_control, init_routine));
return (_stub_once(once_control, init_routine));
}
It is probably still a good idea to have the stub_once() patch I think so
that pthread_once() DTRT in a single-threaded program.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200911191254.50902.jhb>