The following reply was made to PR kern/131597; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> Cc: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, guilla...@morinfr.org, k...@freebsd.org, davi...@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/131597: [kernel] c++ exceptions very slow on FreeBSD 7.1/amd64 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:29:50 -0400 On Friday, April 23, 2010 10:41:11 am Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:21:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday 23 April 2010 9:47:40 am Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:43:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > On Friday 23 April 2010 8:25:01 am Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 04:09:34PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > I tracked the sigprocmask() system calls down to the operations to > > > > > > acquire a write lock in the runtime linker. The lock was added to > > > > > > fix > > > > > > an earlier bug with throwing exceptions in multithreaded C++ apps. > > > > > > The > > > > > > relevant commit that added the lock is this: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revision&revision=178807 > > > > > > > > > > > > Are exceptions permitted during a signal handler? If not, then in > > > > > > theory we would not need to invoke sigprocmask() for this > > > > > > particular > > > > > > lock perhaps? I'm not sure how easy that would be to achieve given > > > > > > the > > > > > > hooks to allow the thread library to overload the locking routines. > > > > > > Also, this doesn't explain the lack of sigprocmask() calls under > > > > > > i386. > > > > > > FreeBSD/i386 should be using the same locking code and thus > > > > > > invoking > > > > > > sigprocmask() for each exception as well. > > > > > > > > > > Throwing an exception during asyncronous signal execution rises > > > > > undefined > > > > > behaviour, AFAIK. sigprocmask() is there to support libc_r, and > > > > > cannot > > > > > be removed as far as we need to provide FreeBSD 4.x compatibility. > > > > > > > > Hmmm. Why does libthr use sigprocmask() for its rtld locks then? Is > > > > that > > > > just a copy-paste from libc_r that can be removed now? > > > > > > Hmmm^2. It seems it is there to prevent recursive entry into rtld from > > > signal handler, that may reference yet unresolved symbol, e.g. libc > > > syscall wrapper, from PLT. So my patch is wrong. > > > > Presumably we could use a different type of lock that doesn't use > > sigprocmask() to serialize calls do dl_iterate_phdr()? I'm not sure if > > libthr would really need to overwrite the behavior of that lock or if > > a simple atomic_cmpset()-based mutex would always be fine. > During my porting of libunwind, I was told by libunwind maintainer > that they have to call dl_iterate_phdr() from signal context to > unwind, if libunwind is called from signal context. > > Apparently, glibc' dl_iterate_phdr() is not signal-safe, while our is. [Revisiting this] Do we know of any use cases where libunwind would be used from a signal handler? Could we instead simply declare it to be an unsafe API in a signal context? longjmp(3) isn't safe in a signal context and throwing exceptions in a signal handler is undefined, so declaring libunwind to similarly be unsafe may be fine. > > OTOH, I'm not sure why libthr needs to use non-standard lock hooks at > > this point as they don't seem to be markedly different from the ones > > rtld uses. > > libthr locks provide exclusion both for other kernel-executed threads > and signal handlers, while the rtld-default locks only protect against > signal handlers and thus libc_r-style threads. Oh, bah. The rtld locks do use atomic operations that are thread safe, but I missed that the 'oldsigmask' global needs to be per-thread. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-bugs-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
