On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > To avoid a deadlock if try_to_free_from_threads() is called while
> > read_lock is already locked within the same thread (may happen through
> > the read_sha1_file() path), a simple mutex ownership is added. This
> > could have been handled automatically with the PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE
> > type but the Windows pthread emulation would get much more complex.
> ...
> > +static void try_to_free_from_threads(size_t size)
> > +{
> > + int self = pthread_equal(read_mutex_owner, pthread_self());
> > + if (!self)
> > + read_lock();
> > + release_pack_memory(size, -1);
> > + if (!self)
> > + read_unlock();
> > +}
>
> Is there any concern that a partially unset read_mutex_owner might
> look like the current thread's identity?
>
> That is, memset() can be setting the bytes one by one. If the lock
> is being released we might observe the current owner as ourselves
> if we see only part of that release, and our identity is the same
> as another thread, only with the lower-address bytes unset.
In practice memset() will optimize the memory access by using words and
no bytes. But in theory this is not guaranteed. The solution for this
would be to have yet another mutex just to protect the read_mutex
hownership information modifications in order to make it atomic to
potential readers. That is becoming ugly for a feature (the freeing of
pack data) that is not supposed to be the common case.
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html