|
Message-ID: <20220223200633.GY7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 15:06:35 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Suggestion for thread safety On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:57:46PM +0100, Markus Wichmann wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:30:43AM +0000, Lee Shallis wrote: > > in other words just > > with LOCK & pauseCB I've achieved thread safety without the file > > knowing anything about the system api, > > You have indeed not done that. You have instead written the word "lock" > enough times to give someone skim-reading the file false confidence that > this stuff will actually work in a multi-threaded context, only to then > fail under high load for inexplicable reasons. > > I keep seeing this behavior from programmers that ought to know better. > You see, an exclusive lock consists of two parts: The mutual exclusion > and the sleep. And yes, spinlocks skip the second part, but my point is: > The mutual exclusion is actually the easy part, and any hack with a > Messiah complex and a CPU manual can do it. The sleep is the hard part, > if you want to do it right. It needs to be Goldilocks. Too short, and > you are wasting resources (every time your thread spins in the loop is > time the CPU could have better spent on other threads), too long and you > are wasting time. > > Your sleep is definitely too short, and you didn't even get the mutual > exclusion part right. It's worse: it has *three* parts, the third being the _synchronizing memory_ part, which I'm guessing this made no attempt to do at all. That's where all the time in a lock is actually spent, and if you somehow avoid doing that (note: x86 will mostly do it for you and send you the bill), things will blow up spectacularly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.