Hi again, On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Dalleau, Frederic <frederic.dalleau at intel.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM, David Henningsson > <david.henningsson at canonical.com> wrote: >> On 04/23/2012 05:03 PM, Dalleau, Frederic wrote: >>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM, David Henningsson >>> <david.henningsson at canonical.com> ?wrote: >>>> >>>> While researching a bug I came across something that might be a bug in >>>> the >>>> pa_once logic, but this stuff is tricky, so I might also be missing >>>> something. >>>> >>>> Imagine this: >>>> >>>> ?* Thread 1 runs pa_once_begin, succeeds and starts running the payload >>>> (i e >>>> the code that should only run once). >>>> ?* Thread 2 starts running pa_once_begin, but only the first row. We're >>>> now >>>> right *before* pa_atomic_inc(&control->ref) but *after* >>>> pa_atomic_load(&control->done). >>>> ?* Thread 1 finishes the payload, runs pa_once_done which sets >>>> control->done >>>> and frees the mutex. >>>> ?* Thread 2 continues, pa_once_begin succeeds and the payload is now run >>>> a >>>> second time! >>>> >>> >>> After reading your mail, I made some experiments by adding a usleep() call >>> in Thread 1 between pa_atomic_load(&control->done) and >>> pa_atomic_inc(&control->ref) >>> and that failed once-test 100% of time. >>> >>> I reverted the usleep and made another experiment using 50000 iterations >>> in >>> once-test and it just failed. >>> >>> Good catch ! >> >> >> I tried to look up implementation/algorithm suggestions, and for the ones I >> found [1], there was no freeing of the mutex. Without freeing, the code >> becomes simpler. The attached patch is a version of that. I've just tried a >> simple once-test (but do feel free to run it 50000 times :-) ). >> >> But of course, now we leak a mutex. But that's what we already do with the >> static mutexes we use in a few places already, so maybe it doesn't matter >> much? >> >> > > Your patch has passed the 50000 iteration test, but I'm reluctant in the idea of > leaking memory since solutions exists. > > I have attached a version which uses reference counting to free the > mutex. I can't find > any significant difference in cpu usage, but it must be double checked > for correctness. > > libatomic_ops documentation suggest the following : > http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/example.php4 > With a static mutex, it uses a few extra bytes (pthread_mutex_t is 24 > bytes on my box), but it may also offer the best performances of all: > no allocation > and no busy loop waiting for mutex creation. I'm giving it a try but > it needs a bit > of plumbing. This might not be feasible at all, I just forgot that there were other OSes than Linux ;) Regards, Fr?d?ric
