How can barriers be destroyable as soon as pthread_barrier_wait returns?_问答_开发者

This question is based on:

When is it safe to destroy a pthread barrier?

and the recent glibc bug report:

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12674

I'm not sure about the semaphores issue reported in glibc, but presumably it's supposed to be valid to destroy a barrier as soon as pthread_barrier_wait returns, as per the above linked question. (Normally, the thread that got PTHREAD_BARRIER_SERIAL_THREAD, or a "special" thread that already considered itself "responsible" for the barrier object, would be the one to destroy it.) The main use case I can think of is when a barrier is used to synchronize a new thread's use of data on the creating thread's stack, preventing the creating thread from returning until the new thread gets to use the data; other barriers probably have a lifetime equal to that of the whole program, or controlled by some other synchronization object.

In any case, how can an implementation 开发者_开发技巧ensure that destruction of the barrier (and possibly even unmapping of the memory it resides in) is safe as soon as pthread_barrier_wait returns in any thread? It seems the other threads that have not yet returned would need to examine at least some part of the barrier object to finish their work and return, much like how, in the glibc bug report cited above, sem_post has to examine the waiters count after having adjusted the semaphore value.

I'm going to take another crack at this with an example implementation of pthread_barrier_wait() that uses mutex and condition variable functionality as might be provided by a pthreads implementation. Note that this example doesn't try to deal with performance considerations (specifically, when the waiting threads are unblocked, they are all re-serialized when exiting the wait). I think that using something like Linux Futex objects could help with the performance issues, but Futexes are still pretty much out of my experience.

Also, I doubt that this example handles signals or errors correctly (if at all in the case of signals). But I think proper support for those things can be added as an exercise for the reader.

My main fear is that the example may have a race condition or deadlock (the mutex handling is more complex than I like). Also note that it is an example that hasn't even been compiled. Treat it as pseudo-code. Also keep in mind that my experience is mainly in Windows - I'm tackling this more as an educational opportunity than anything else. So the quality of the pseudo-code may well be pretty low.

However, disclaimers aside, I think it may give an idea of how the problem asked in the question could be handled (ie., how can the pthread_barrier_wait() function allow the pthread_barrier_t object it uses to be destroyed by any of the released threads without danger of using the barrier object by one or more threads on their way out).

Here goes:

/* 
 *  Since this is a part of the implementation of the pthread API, it uses
 *  reserved names that start with "__" for internal structures and functions
 *
 *  Functions such as __mutex_lock() and __cond_wait() perform the same function
 *  as the corresponding pthread API.
 */

// struct __barrier_wait data is intended to hold all the data
//  that `pthread_barrier_wait()` will need after releasing
//  waiting threads.  This will allow the function to avoid
//  touching the passed in pthread_barrier_t object after 
//  the wait is satisfied (since any of the released threads
//   can destroy it)

struct __barrier_waitdata {
    struct __mutex cond_mutex;
    struct __cond cond;
    
    unsigned waiter_count;
    int wait_complete;
};

struct __barrier {
    unsigned count;
    
    struct __mutex waitdata_mutex;
    struct __barrier_waitdata* pwaitdata;
};

typedef struct __barrier pthread_barrier_t;



int __barrier_waitdata_init( struct __barrier_waitdata* pwaitdata)
{
    waitdata.waiter_count = 0;
    waitdata.wait_complete = 0;
    
    rc = __mutex_init( &waitdata.cond_mutex, NULL);
    if (!rc) {
        return rc;
    }

    rc = __cond_init( &waitdata.cond, NULL);
    if (!rc) {
        __mutex_destroy( &pwaitdata->waitdata_mutex);
        return rc;
    }

    return 0;
}




int pthread_barrier_init(pthread_barrier_t *barrier, const pthread_barrierattr_t *attr, unsigned int count)
{
    int rc;
    
    rc = __mutex_init( &barrier->waitdata_mutex, NULL);
    if (!rc) return rc;

    barrier->pwaitdata = NULL;
    barrier->count = count;
    
    //TODO: deal with attr
}



int pthread_barrier_wait(pthread_barrier_t *barrier)
{
    int rc;
    struct __barrier_waitdata* pwaitdata;
    unsigned target_count;

    // potential waitdata block (only one thread's will actually be used)
    struct __barrier_waitdata waitdata; 
    
    // nothing to do if we only need to wait for one thread...
    if (barrier->count == 1) return PTHREAD_BARRIER_SERIAL_THREAD;
    
    rc = __mutex_lock( &barrier->waitdata_mutex);
    if (!rc) return rc;
    
    if (!barrier->pwaitdata) {
        // no other thread has claimed the waitdata block yet - 
        //  we'll use this thread's
        
        rc = __barrier_waitdata_init( &waitdata);
        if (!rc) {
            __mutex_unlock( &barrier->waitdata_mutex);
            return rc;
        }

        barrier->pwaitdata = &waitdata;
    }
    
    pwaitdata = barrier->pwaitdata;
    target_count = barrier->count;
    
    //  all data necessary for handling the return from a wait is pointed to
    //  by `pwaitdata`, and `pwaitdata` points to a block of data on the stack of
    //  one of the waiting threads.  We have to make sure that the thread that owns
    //  that block waits until all others have finished with the information
    //  pointed to by `pwaitdata` before it returns.  However, after the 'big' wait
    //  is completed, the `pthread_barrier_t` object that's passed into this 
    //  function isn't used. The last operation done to `*barrier` is to set 
    //  `barrier->pwaitdata = NULL` to satisfy the requirement that this function
    //  leaves `*barrier` in a state as if `pthread_barrier_init()` had been called - and
    //  that operation is done by the thread that signals the wait condition 
    //  completion before the completion is signaled.

    // note: we're still holding  `barrier->waitdata_mutex`;
    
    rc = __mutex_lock( &pwaitdata->cond_mutex);
    pwaitdata->waiter_count += 1;
    
    if (pwaitdata->waiter_count < target_count) {
        // need to wait for other threads
        
        __mutex_unlock( &barrier->waitdata_mutex);
        do {
            // TODO:  handle the return code from `__cond_wait()` to break out of this
            //          if a signal makes that necessary
            __cond_wait( &pwaitdata->cond,  &pwaitdata->cond_mutex);
        } while (!pwaitdata->wait_complete);
    }
    else {
        // this thread satisfies the wait - unblock all the other waiters
        pwaitdata->wait_complete = 1;

        // 'release' our use of the passed in pthread_barrier_t object
        barrier->pwaitdata = NULL;
        
        // unlock the barrier's waitdata_mutex - the barrier is  
        //  ready for use by another set of threads
        __mutex_unlock( barrier->waitdata_mutex);

        // finally, unblock the waiting threads
        __cond_broadcast( &pwaitdata->cond);
    }

    // at this point, barrier->waitdata_mutex is unlocked, the 
    //  barrier->pwaitdata pointer has been cleared, and no further 
    //  use of `*barrier` is permitted...
    
    // however, each thread still has a valid `pwaitdata` pointer - the 
    // thread that owns that block needs to wait until all others have 
    // dropped the pwaitdata->waiter_count
    
    // also, at this point the `pwaitdata->cond_mutex` is locked, so
    //  we're in a critical section
    
    rc = 0;
    pwaitdata->waiter_count--;
    
    if (pwaitdata == &waitdata) {
        // this thread owns the waitdata block - it needs to hang around until 
        //  all other threads are done

        // as a convenience, this thread will be the one that returns 
        //  PTHREAD_BARRIER_SERIAL_THREAD
        rc = PTHREAD_BARRIER_SERIAL_THREAD;
        
        while (pwaitdata->waiter_count!= 0) {
            __cond_wait( &pwaitdata->cond, &pwaitdata->cond_mutex);
        };

        __mutex_unlock( &pwaitdata->cond_mutex);
        __cond_destroy( &pwaitdata->cond);
        __mutex_destroy( &pwaitdata_cond_mutex);
    }
    else if (pwaitdata->waiter_count == 0) {
        __cond_signal( &pwaitdata->cond);
        __mutex_unlock( &pwaitdata->cond_mutex);
    }

    return rc;
}

17 July 20111: Update in response to a comment/question about process-shared barriers

I forgot completely about the situation with barriers that are shared between processes. And as you mention, the idea I outlined will fail horribly in that case. I don't really have experience with POSIX shared memory use, so any suggestions I make should be tempered with scepticism.

To summarize (for my benefit, if no one else's):

When any of the threads gets control after pthread_barrier_wait() returns, the barrier object needs to be in the 'init' state (however, the most recent pthread_barrier_init() on that object set it). Also implied by the API is that once any of the threads return, one or more of the the following things could occur:

another call to pthread_barrier_wait() to start a new round of synchronization of threads
pthread_barrier_destroy() on the barrier object
the memory allocated for the barrier object could be freed or unshared if it's in a shared memory region.

These things mean that before the pthread_barrier_wait() call allows any thread to return, it pretty much needs to ensure that all waiting threads are no longer using the barrier object in the context of that call. My first answer addressed this by creating a 'local' set of synchronization objects (a mutex and an associated condition variable) outside of the barrier object that would block all the threads. These local synchronization objects were allocated on the stack of the thread that happened to call pthread_barrier_wait() first.

I think that something similar would need to be done for barriers that are process-shared. However, in that case simply allocating those sync objects on a thread's stack isn't adequate (since the other processes would have no access). For a process-shared barrier, those objects would have to be allocated in process-shared memory. I think the technique I listed above could be applied similarly:

the waitdata_mutex that controls the 'allocation' of the local sync variables (the waitdata block) would be in process-shared memory already by virtue of it being in the barrier struct. Of course, when the barrier is set to THEAD_PROCESS_SHARED, that attribute would also need to be applied to the waitdata_mutex
when __barrier_waitdata_init() is called to initialize the local mutex & condition variable, it would have to allocate those objects in shared memory instead of simply using the stack-based waitdata variable.
when the 'cleanup' thread destroys the mutex and the condition variable in the waitdata block, it would also need to clean up the process-shared memory allocation for the block.
in the case where shared memory is used, there needs to be some mechanism to ensured that the shared memory object is opened at least once in each process, and closed the correct number of times in each process (but not closed entirely before every thread in the process is finished using it). I haven't thought through exactly how that would be done...

I think these changes would allow the scheme to operate with process-shared barriers. the last bullet point above is a key item to figure out. Another is how to construct a name for the shared memory object that will hold the 'local' process-shared waitdata. There are certain attributes you'd want for that name:

you'd want the storage for the name to reside in the struct pthread_barrier_t structure so all process have access to it; that means a known limit to the length of the name
you'd want the name to be unique to each 'instance' of a set of calls to pthread_barrier_wait() because it might be possible for a second round of waiting to start before all threads have gotten all the way out of the first round waiting (so the process-shared memory block set up for the waitdata might not have been freed yet). So the name probably has to be based on things like process id, thread id, address of the barrier object, and an atomic counter.
I don't know whether or not there are security implications to having the name be 'guessable'. if so, some randomization needs to be added - no idea how much. Maybe you'd also need to hash the data mentioned above along with the random bits. Like I said, I really have no idea if this is important or not.

As far as I can see there is no need for pthread_barrier_destroy to be an immediate operation. You could have it wait until all threads that are still in their wakeup phase are woken up.

E.g you could have an atomic counter awakening that initially set to the number of threads that are woken up. Then it would be decremented as last action before pthread_barrier_wait returns. pthread_barrier_destroy then just could be spinning until that counter falls to 0.