History log of /haiku/headers/private/system/user_mutex_defs.h
Revision Date Author Comments
# 513f86c7 19-Jun-2023 Augustin Cavalier <waddlesplash@gmail.com>

user_mutex_defs: Add note that the flags area is shared with timeout flags.

No functional change.


# 93d7d1c5 12-Jun-2023 Augustin Cavalier <waddlesplash@gmail.com>

user_mutex: Per-team contexts.

This requires the introduction of the flag B_USER_MUTEX_SHARED, and then
actually using the SHARED flags in pthread structures to determine when
it should be passed through.

This commit still uses wired memory even for per-team contexts.
That will change in the next commit.

GLTeapot FPS seems about the same.

Change-Id: I749a00dcea1531e113a65299b6d6610f57511fcc
Reviewed-on: https://review.haiku-os.org/c/haiku/+/6602
Reviewed-by: waddlesplash <waddlesplash@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Commit checker robot <no-reply+buildbot@haiku-os.org>


# 6f3f29c7 06-Jun-2023 Augustin Cavalier <waddlesplash@gmail.com>

user_mutex: Refactor locking and unblocking mechanism.

Suppose the following scenario:

1. Thread A holds a mutex.

2. Thread B goes to acquire the mutex, winds up in kernel waiting.

3. Thread A unlocks; first unsets the LOCKED flag.
As WAITING is set, it calls the kernel; but instead of processing
this immediately, the thread is suspended for any reason (locks,
reschedule, etc.)

4. Thread B hits a timeout, or a signal. It then unblocks in the kernel,
which causes the WAITING flag to be unset.

5. Thread C goes to acquire the lock. It sets the LOCKED flag.
It sees the WAITING flag is not set, so it returns at once,
having successfully acquired the lock.

6. Thread A, suspended back in step 3, resumes.

Now we encounter the problem. Under the previous code, the following
would occur.

7. Thread A sees that no threads are waiting. It thus unsets the LOCKED
flag, and returns from the kernel. Now we have a mutex theoretically
held by thread C but which (illegally) has no LOCKED flag set!

8. Some other thread tries to acquire the lock, and succeeds, for LOCKED
is not set. We now have one lock owned by two separate threads.
That's very bad!

The solution, in this commit, is to (1) switch from using "atomic_or"
to lock mutexes, to using "atomic_test_and_set", and (2) mandate that
_kern_unblock_mutex must be invoked with the mutex already unlocked.

Trying to solve the problem with (2) but without (1) produces other
complications and would overall be more complicated. For instance,
all existing userland code expected that it would set LOCKED, but then
check LOCKED|WAITING. If _kern_mutex_unlock does not unset LOCKED,
then whichever thread sets LOCKED when it was previously unset is
now the mutex's undisputed owner, and if it fails to notice this,
would deadlock.

That could have been solved with extra checks at all lock points, but
then that would mean locks would not be acquired "fairly": it would
be possible for any thread to race with an unlocking thread, and
acquire the lock before the kernel had a chance to wake anyone up.

Given how fast atomics can be, and how slow invoking the kernel is
comparatively, that would probably make our mutexes extremely "unfair."
This would not violate the POSIX specification, but it does seem like
a dangerous choice to make in implementing these APIs.

Linux's "futex" API, which our API bears some similarities to, requires
at least one atomic test-and-set for an uncontended acquisition,
and multiple atomics more for even the simplest case of contended
acquisition. If it works for them, it should work for us, too.

Fixes #18436.

Change-Id: Ib8c28acf04ce03234fe738e41aa0969ca1917540
Reviewed-on: https://review.haiku-os.org/c/haiku/+/6537
Tested-by: Commit checker robot <no-reply+buildbot@haiku-os.org>
Reviewed-by: Adrien Destugues <pulkomandy@pulkomandy.tk>
Reviewed-by: waddlesplash <waddlesplash@gmail.com>


# 813d4cbe 11-Apr-2010 Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@gmx.de>

* Moved created subdirectory src/system/kernel/lock.cpp to new subdirectory
locks.
* Added syscalls for a new kind of mutex. A mutex consists only of an int32 and
doesn't require any kernel resources. So it's initialization cannot fail
(it consists only of setting the mutex value to 0). An uncontended lock or
unlock operation can basically consist of an atomic_*() in userland. The
syscalls (when the mutex is contended) are a bit more expensive than semaphore
operations, though.


git-svn-id: file:///srv/svn/repos/haiku/haiku/trunk@36158 a95241bf-73f2-0310-859d-f6bbb57e9c96


# 813d4cbe94b99e33ac2b921ae76df4d1b2b39b40 11-Apr-2010 Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@gmx.de>

* Moved created subdirectory src/system/kernel/lock.cpp to new subdirectory
locks.
* Added syscalls for a new kind of mutex. A mutex consists only of an int32 and
doesn't require any kernel resources. So it's initialization cannot fail
(it consists only of setting the mutex value to 0). An uncontended lock or
unlock operation can basically consist of an atomic_*() in userland. The
syscalls (when the mutex is contended) are a bit more expensive than semaphore
operations, though.


git-svn-id: file:///srv/svn/repos/haiku/haiku/trunk@36158 a95241bf-73f2-0310-859d-f6bbb57e9c96