Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:03:43 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Fengwei yin <yfw.bsd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org, jack.ren@intel.com Subject: Re: About the memory barrier in BSD libc Message-ID: <20120423130343.GT2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAPHpMumh3YpB3RDD-7g5tU6thiuNA6HTuVxmt-9_OzUiEdEXzA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPHpMu=DOGQ=TuFeYH7bH8hVwteT4Q3k67-mvoOFob6P3Y506w@mail.gmail.com> <20120423084120.GD76983@zxy.spb.ru> <CAPHpMu=kCwhf1RV_sYBDWDPL8368YTMLXge4L_g_F4AkTX1H5g@mail.gmail.com> <20120423094043.GS32749@zxy.spb.ru> <CAPHpMukLUeetSKpH2oiKJQ3ML_PFHEi6a0hK3_Ery=LX1YEd3g@mail.gmail.com> <20120423113838.GT32749@zxy.spb.ru> <CAPHpMumWu_aaZ4Sj5Athro6441Y%2B3_phbD2jxkKE-CdBf-Fd8g@mail.gmail.com> <20120423120720.GS2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAPHpMumh3YpB3RDD-7g5tU6thiuNA6HTuVxmt-9_OzUiEdEXzA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vtxr9MvRW4bhShyg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:33:05PM +0800, Fengwei yin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:44:34PM +0800, Fengwei yin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> w=
rote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:26:54PM +0800, Fengwei yin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru=
> wrote:
> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 05:32:24PM +0800, Fengwei yin wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb=
.ru> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:56:03PM +0800, Fengwei yin wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Hi list,
> >> >> >> >> If this is not correct question on the list, please let me kn=
ow and
> >> >> >> >> sorry for noise.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I have a question regarding the BSD libc for SMP arch. I didn=
't see
> >> >> >> >> memory barrier used in libc.
> >> >> >> >> How can we make sure it's safe on SMP arch?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > /usr/include/machine/atomic.h:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > #define mb() =9A =9A__asm __volatile("lock; addl $0,(%%esp)" :=
: : "memory")
> >> >> >> > #define wmb() =9A __asm __volatile("lock; addl $0,(%%esp)" : :=
: "memory")
> >> >> >> > #define rmb() =9A __asm __volatile("lock; addl $0,(%%esp)" : :=
: "memory")
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for the information. But it looks no body use it in libc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think no body in libc need memory barrier: libc don't work with
> >> >> > peripheral, for atomic opertions used different macros.
> >> >>
> >> >> If we check the usage of __sinit(), it is a typical singleton patte=
rn which
> >> >> needs memory barrier to make sure no potential SMP issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or did I miss something here?
> >> >
> >> > What architecture with cache incoherency and FreeBSD support?
> >>
> >> I suppose it's not related with cache inchoherency (I could be wrong).
> >> It's related
> >> with reorder of instruction by CPU.
> >>
> >> Here is the link talking about why need memory barrier for singleton:
> >> http://www.oaklib.org/docs/oak/singleton.html
> >>
> >> x86 has strict memory model and may not suffer this kind of issue. But
> >> ARM need to
> >> take care of it IMHO.
> >
> > Please note that __sinit is idempotent, so double-initialization is not
> > an issue there. The only possible problematic case would be other thread
> > executing exit and not noticing non-NULL value for __cleanup while curr=
ent
> > thread just set it.
> >
> > I am not sure how much real this race is. Each call to _sinit() is imme=
diately
> > followed by a lock acquire, typically FLOCKFILE(), which enforces full =
barrier
> > semantic due to pthread_mutex_lock call. The exit() performs __cxa_fina=
lize()
> > call before checking __cleanup value, and __cxa_finalize() itself locks
> > atexit_mutex. So the race is tiny and probably possible only for somewh=
at
> > buggy applications which perform exit() while there are stdio operations
> > in progress.
> >
> > Also note that some functions assign to __cleanup unconditionally.
> >
> > Do you see any real issue due to non-synchronized access to __cleanup ?
>=20
> No. I didn't see real issue. I am just reviewing the code.
>=20
> If you don't think __sinit has issue, let's check another code:
> line 68 in libc/stdio/fclose.c
> line 133 in libc/stdio/findfp.c (function __sfp())
>=20
> Which is trying to free a fp slot by assign 0 to fp->_flags. But if
> the instrucation
> could be re-ordered, another CPU could see fp->_flags is assigned to 0
> before the
> cleanup from line 57 to 67.
>=20
> Let's say, if another CPU is in line 133 of __sfp(), it could see
> fp->_flags become
> 0 before it's aware of the cleanup (Line 57 to line 67 in
> libc/stdio/fclose.c) happen.
>=20
> Note: the mutex of FUNLOCKFILE(fp) in line 69 of libc/stdio/fclose.c
> just could make sure
> line 70 happen after line 68. It can't impact the re-order of line 57
> ~ line 68 by CPU.
Yes, FUNLOCKFILE() there would have no effect on the potential CPU reorderi=
ng
of the writes. But does the order of these writes matter at all ?
Please note that __sfp() reinitializes all fields written by fclose().
Only if CPU executing fclose() is allowed to reorder operations so that
the external effect of _flags =3D 0 assignment can be observed before that
CPU executes other operations from fclose(), there could be a problem.
This is definitely impossible on Intel, and I indeed do not know about
other architectures enough to reject such possibility. The _flags member
is short, so atomics cannot be used there. The easier solution, if this
is indeed an issue, is to lock thread_lock around _flags =3D 0 assignment
in fclose().
--vtxr9MvRW4bhShyg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk+VUy8ACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4g7pwCgnxQskpojwuEEp4/fxAeP287y
6CEAniYTpQJ3iblCQ8JnmF5i0HJOx7te
=ijpf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--vtxr9MvRW4bhShyg--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120423130343.GT2358>