When checking the conditional of "while (me->remaining)", we did not
hold the lock. Calling find_deltas would still be safe, since it checks
"remaining" (after taking the lock) and is able to handle all values. In
fact, this could (currently) not trigger any bug: a bug could happen if
`remaining` transitioning from zero to non-zero races with the evaluation
of the while-condition, but these are always separated by the
data_ready-mechanism.
Make sure we have the lock when we read `remaining`. This does mean we
release it just so that find_deltas can take it immediately again. We
could tweak the contract so that the lock should be taken before calling
find_deltas, but let's defer that until someone can actually show that
"unlock+lock" has a measurable negative impact.
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx>
---
v2: unchanged from v1
builtin/pack-objects.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/builtin/pack-objects.c b/builtin/pack-objects.c
index c753e9237..bd391e97a 100644
--- a/builtin/pack-objects.c
+++ b/builtin/pack-objects.c
@@ -2170,7 +2170,10 @@ static void *threaded_find_deltas(void *arg)
{
struct thread_params *me = arg;
+ progress_lock();
while (me->remaining) {
+ progress_unlock();
+
find_deltas(me->list, &me->remaining,
me->window, me->depth, me->processed);
@@ -2192,7 +2195,10 @@ static void *threaded_find_deltas(void *arg)
pthread_cond_wait(&me->cond, &me->mutex);
me->data_ready = 0;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&me->mutex);
+
+ progress_lock();
}
+ progress_unlock();
/* leave ->working 1 so that this doesn't get more work assigned */
return NULL;
}
--
2.14.1.151.gdfeca7a7e
