[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 0/6] lightweight robust futexes: -V3
    > in this particular case i dont think it could be described in a more 
    > generic way. I'm not against your idea per se - but someone would have
    > to code it up ;)

    I wasn't talking about 'automation' code, nor about 'more flexible
    or generic' code, nor any other changes or additions to your code,
    but rather about documentation that spelled out the ABI explicitly,
    independent of kernel or glibc code.

    Apparently my question was confusing, as you seem to have answered
    a different question than I thought I asked. Good answers, to some
    other question.

    Let me try again, from the beginning.

    First, let me point out the tight coupling of this patch set, at least
    as currently presented, with glibc. Notice for example the following
    comment from your patch:

    + * NOTE: this structure is part of the syscall ABI, and must only be
    + * changed if the change is first communicated with the glibc folks.

    Perhaps I am being an old fogey, reflecting times and systems long
    past their prime, but I'd have thought that it would be better if
    this interface was not so much a contract written in C code between
    the kernel and glibc (which is how the above comment sounds) but
    rather a contract between the kernel code and a neutral document,
    to which any user side implementation, such as glibc, could be written.

    The comments and documents for robust_futexes seem to be written
    as if Linux had some special arrangement with glibc to be the sole
    purveyor of the userland interface. Is that the case?

    And half of this contract, the glibc code, isn't even explicitly
    presented on this lkml thread.

    Second, let me try again to explain what sort of more language neutral
    Documentation I was hoping for, this time by example.

    As it stands now, I have to read the kernel half of the code to figure
    this out (yeah, I know, that complaint won't garner much sympathy on
    this list ...)

    Let me quit complaining and try to offer up something useful.

    How about adding this to Documentation/robust-futexes.txt.

    Be warned that the following may be seriously confused.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Begin +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The robust futex ABI

    Robust_futexes provide a mechanism that is used in addition to normal
    futexes, for kernel assist of cleanup of held locks on task exit.

    The interesting data as to what futexes a thread is holding is kept on
    a linked list in user space, where it can be updated efficiently as
    locks are taken and dropped, without kernel intervention. The only
    additional kernel intervention required for robust_futexes above and
    beyond what is required for futexes is:
    1) a one time call, per thread, to tell the kernel where its list of
    held robust_futexes begins, and
    2) internal kernel code at exit, to handle any listed locks held
    by the exiting thread.

    The existing normal futexes already provide a "Fast Userspace Locking"
    mechanism, which handles uncontested locking without needing a
    system call, and handles contested locking by maintaining a list of
    waiting threads in the kernel. Options on the sys_futex(2) system
    call support waiting on a particular futex, and waking up the next
    waiter on a particular futex.

    For robust_futexes to work, the user code (typically in a library such
    as glibc linked with the application) has to manage and place the
    necessary list elements exactly as the kernel expects them. If it
    fails to do so, then improperly listed locks will not be cleaned up
    on exit, probably causing deadlock or other such failure of the other
    threads waiting on the same locks.

    A thread that anticipates possibly using robust_futexes should first
    issue the system call:
    asmlinkage long
    sys_set_robust_list(struct robust_list_head __user *head, size_t len);

    The pointer 'head' points to a structure in the threads address space
    consisting of three words. Each word is 32 bits on 32 bit arch's,
    or 64 bits on 64 bit arch's, and local byte order. Each thread should
    have its own thread private 'head'.

    If a thread is running in 32 bit compatibility mode on a 64 native
    arch kernel, then it can actually have two such structures - one
    using 32 bit words for 32 bit compatibility mode, and one using 64 bit
    words for 64 bit native mode. The kernel, if it is a 64 bit kernel
    supporting 32 bit compatibility mode, will attempt to process both
    lists on each task exit, if the corresponding sys_set_robust_list()
    call has been made to setup that list.

    The first word in the memory structure at 'head' contains a
    pointer to a single linked list of 'lock entries', one per lock,
    as described below. If the list is empty, the pointer will point
    to itself, 'head'. The last 'lock entry' points back to the 'head'.

    The second word, called 'offset', specifies the offset from the
    address of the associated 'lock entry', plus or minus, of what will
    be called the 'lock word', from that 'lock entry'. The 'lock word'
    is always a 32 bit word, unlike the other words above. The 'lock
    word' holds 3 flag bits in the upper 3 bits, and the thread id (TID)
    of the thread holding the lock in the bottom 29 bits. See further
    below for a description of the flag bits.

    The third word, called 'list_op_pending', contains transient copy of
    the address of the 'lock entry', during list insertion and removal,
    and is needed to correctly resolve races should a thread exit while
    in the middle of a locking or unlocking operation.

    Each 'lock entry' on the single linked list starting at 'head' consists
    of just a single word, pointing to the next 'lock entry', or back to
    'head' if there are no more entries. In addition, nearby to each
    'lock entry', at an offset from the 'lock entry' specified by the
    'offset' word, is one 'lock word'.

    The 'lock word' is always 32 bits, and is intended to be the same 32
    bit lock variable used by the futex mechanism, in conjunction with
    robust_futexes. The kernel will only be able to wakeup the next thread
    waiting for a lock on a threads exit if that next thread used the futex
    mechanism to register the address of that 'lock word' with the kernel.

    For each futex lock currently held by a thread, if it wants this
    robust_futex support for exit cleanup of that lock, it should have
    one 'lock entry' on this list, with its associated 'lock word' at
    the specified 'offset'. Should a thread die while holding any such
    locks, the kernel will walk this list, mark any such locks with a bit
    indicating their holder died, and wakeup the next thread waiting for
    that lock using the futex mechanism.

    When a thread has invoked the above system call to indicate it
    anticipates using robust_futexes, the kernel stores the passed in
    'head' pointer for that task. The task may retrieve that value later
    on by using the system call:
    asmlinkage long
    sys_get_robust_list(int pid, struct robust_list_head __user **head_ptr,
    size_t __user *len_ptr);

    It is anticipated that threads will use robust_futexes embedded in
    larger, user level locking structures, one per lock. The kernel
    robust_futex mechanism doesn't care what else is in that structure,
    so long as the 'offset' to the 'lock word' is the same for all
    robust_futexes used by that thread. The thread should link those
    locks it currently holds using the 'lock entry' pointers. It may
    also have other links between the locks, such as the reverse side of
    a double linked list, but that doesn't matter to the kernel.

    By keeping its locks linked this way, on a list starting with a 'head'
    pointer known to the kernel, the kernel can provide to a thread the
    essential service available for robust_futexes, which is to help
    clean up locks held at the time of (a perhaps unexpectedly) exit.

    Actual locking and unlocking, during normal operations, is handled
    entirely by user level code in the contending threads, and by the
    existing futex mechanism to wait for, and wakeup, locks. The kernels
    only essential involvement in robust_futexes is to remember where the
    list 'head' is, and to walk the list on thread exit, handling locks
    still held by the departing thread, as described below.

    There may exist thousands of futex lock structures in a threads
    shared memory, on various data structures, at a given point in time.
    Only those lock structures for locks currently held by that thread
    should be on that thread's robust_futex linked lock list a given time.

    A given futex lock structure in a user shared memory region may be held
    at different times by any of the threads with access to that region.
    The thread currently holding such a lock, if any, is marked with the
    threads TID in the lower 29 bits of the 'lock word'.

    When adding or removing a lock from its list of held locks, in order
    for the kernel to correctly handle lock cleanup regardless of when
    the task exits (perhaps it gets an unexpected signal 9 in the middle
    of manipulating this list), the user code must observe the following
    protocol on 'lock entry' insertion and removal:

    On insertion:
    1) set the 'list_op_pending' word to the address of the 'lock word'
    to be inserted,
    2) acquire the futex lock,
    3) add the lock entry, with its thread id (TID) in the bottom 29 bits
    of the 'lock word', to the linked list starting at 'head', and
    4) clear the 'list_op_pending' word.

    XXX I am particularly unsure of the following -pj XXX

    On removal:
    1) set the 'list_op_pending' word to the address of the 'lock word'
    to be removed,
    2) remove the lock entry for this lock from the 'head' list,
    2) release the futex lock, and
    2) clear the 'lock_op_pending' word.

    On exit, the kernel will consider the address stored in
    'list_op_pending' and the address of each 'lock word' found by walking
    the list starting at 'head'. For each such address, if the bottom
    29 bits of the 'lock word' at offset 'offset' from that address equals
    the exiting threads TID, then the kernel will do two things:
    1) if bit 31 (0x80000000) is set in that word, then attempt a futex
    wakeup on that address, which will waken the next thread that has
    used to the futex mechanism to wait on that address, and
    2) atomically set bit 30 (0x40000000) in the 'lock word'.

    In the above, bit 31 was set by futex waiters on that lock to indicate
    they were waiting, and bit 30 is set by the kernel to indicate that
    the lock owner died holding the lock.

    The kernel exit code will silently stop scanning the list further
    if at any point:
    1) the 'head' pointer or an subsequent linked list pointer
    is not a valid address of a user space word
    2) the calculated location of the 'lock word' (address plus
    'offset') is not the valud address of a 32 bit user space
    3) if the list contains more than 1 million (subject to
    future kernel configuration changes) elements.

    When the kernel sees a list entry whose 'lock word' doesn't have the
    current threads TID in the lower 29 bits, it does nothing with that
    entry, and goes on to the next entry.

    Bit 29 (0x20000000) of the 'lock word' is reserved for future use.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ End ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Other details ...

    Nit ...

    +If a futex is found to be held at exit time, the kernel sets the highest
    +bit of the futex word:
    + #define FUTEX_OWNER_DIED 0x40000000

    Contrary to the comment, that doesn't look like the "highest bit."

    Confusion ...

    +The list is guaranteed to be private and per-thread, so it's lockless.

    This statement seems like it is stretching the truth a bit.
    As best as I can tell, the 'head' is private per-thread, but the
    elements on the list are shared by all contending threads, and so
    adding and removing these elements from a given threads list requires
    some sort of contention handling mechanism, which the code provides.

    I won't rest till it's the best ...
    Programmer, Linux Scalability
    Paul Jackson <> 1.925.600.0401
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-17 05:59    [W:0.038 / U:10.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site