On 2/22/07, Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All statically initialized locks are broken. We made locks smaller,
> and changed the value of the static initialization.
Smaller? Smaller is easy. And you didn't actually reduce
__SIZEOF_PTHREAD_MUTEX_T, did you? This seems like it would not be at all
hard to accommodate just with symbol versioning and not break any
compatibility. Off hand, it seems like it would be some simple code in one
new file in your sysdeps/ tree and a smattering of sysdeps Versions files.
Thanks for your feedback Roland.
Yes, our locks are smaller, we went from a 4 word structure to a 1
word integer. I did not reduce __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_MUTEX_T. NPTL and
Linuxthreads pthread_mutex_t are the same size. Everything has been
kept the same size, but not in exactly the same position (probably a
bug on my part).
In Linuxthreads an initialized _pthread_fastlock is {{1,1,1,1},0} e.g.
{__spinlock, __status}
Old RW Locks
116 /* Read-write locks. */
117 typedef struct _pthread_rwlock_t
118 {
119 struct _pthread_fastlock __rw_lock; /* Lock to guarantee mutual
exclusion */
120 int __rw_readers; /* Number of readers */
121 _pthread_descr __rw_writer; /* Identity of writer, or
NULL if none */
122 _pthread_descr __rw_read_waiting; /* Threads waiting for reading */
123 _pthread_descr __rw_write_waiting; /* Threads waiting for writing */
124 int __rw_kind; /* Reader/Writer preference
selection */
125 int __rw_pshared; /* Shared between processes or not */
126 } pthread_rwlock_t;
New RW Locks
137 /* Data structure for read-write lock variable handling. The
138 structure of the attribute type is not exposed on purpose. */
139 typedef union
140 {
141 struct
142 {
143 int __lock;
144 unsigned int __nr_readers;
145 unsigned int __readers_wakeup;
146 unsigned int __writer_wakeup;
147 unsigned int __nr_readers_queued;
148 unsigned int __nr_writers_queued;
149 /* FLAGS must stay at this position in the structure to maintain
150 binary compatibility. */
151 unsigned int __flags;
152 int __writer;
153 } __data;
154 char __size[__SIZEOF_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_T];
155 long int __align;
156 } pthread_rwlock_t;
In the new structure we have shifted everything up because __lock is
now an integer, instead of a _pthread_fastlock with a 4 word lock
structure. Should I add padding after "__lock" e.g. int pad[3]?
In an old executable the following static initializers:
PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER, PTHREAD_COND_INTIALIZER,
PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER will setup the __spinlock structure to
{1,1,1,1} e.g. unlocked in our Linuxthreads implementation.
To be clear are you suggesting I write compat wrappers for the
pthread_mutex_*, pthread_cond_*, and pthread_rwlock_* functions to
detect old style initialized locks, and reinitialize the lock word?
But if your community is happy with a soname change and not worrying about
its various impacts, by all means just do that. It's a lovely thing to be
able to stop compiling in all the compat stuff.
To do that, all you need is sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/nptl/shlib-versions:
hppa.*-.*-linux.* libc=6.1 GLIBC_2.6
hppa.*-.*-linux.* libpthread=0.1 GLIBC_2.6
I would like to avoid breaking backwards compatibility, but I don't
quite understand all the issues. Your feedback is much appreciated.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
