Re: [PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
On Mon, 8 May 2023 17:31:27 +0800 "Zhu, Lipeng" wrote: > > BTW, did you look at the RELEASE semantics, respectively the note that one > > day (and now is that very > > day), we might improve on the release semantics? Can of course be > > incremental AFAIC > > > Not quite understand your question about looking at the RELEASE > semantics. Can you be more specific? libgfortran/io/io.h: could be further optimized by making this be an __ATOMIC_RELEASE, But let's defer that to a follow-up improvement independently of the rwlock. thanks,
Re: [PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
On 1/1/1970 8:00 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: Hi! [please do not top-post] Sure, thanks for the reminder. On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 21:13:08 +0800 "Zhu, Lipeng" wrote: Hi Bernhard, Thanks for your questions and suggestions. The rwlock could allow multiple threads to have concurrent read-only access to the cache/unit list, only a single writer is allowed. right. Write lock will not be acquired until all read lock are released. So i must have confused rwlock with something else, something that allows self to hold a read-lock and upgrade that to a write-lock, purposely starving all successive incoming readers. I.e. just toggle your RD_TO_WRLOCK impl, here, atomically. This proved to be benefical in some situations in the past. Doesn't seem to work with your rwlock, does it Pthread API doesn't support the upgrade rdlock to wrlock directly, the calling thread may deadlock if at the time the call is made it holds the read-write lock (whether a read or write lock). https://linux.die.net/man/3/pthread_rwlock_wrlock. That is why we implement RD_TO_WRLOCK like this: release read lock firstly and then acquire write lock. And I didn't change the mutex scope when refactor the code, only make a more fine-grained distinction for the read/write cache/unit list. Yes of course, i can see you did that. I complete the comment according to your template, I will insert the comment in the source code in next version patch with other refinement by your suggestions. " Now we did not get a unit in cache and unit list, so we need to create a new unit, and update it to cache and unit list. s/Now/By now/ or s/Now w/W/ and s/get/find/ " We did not find a unit in the cache nor in the unit list, create a new (locked) unit and insert into the unit list and cache. Manipulating either or both the unit list and the unit cache requires to hold a write-lock [for obvious reasons]" Superfluous when talking about pthread_rwlock_wrlock since that implies that even the process acquiring the wrlock has to first release it's very own rdlock. Thanks for the correction, I will update the comments in next v4 patch. Prior to update the cache and list, we need to release all read locks, and then immediately to acquire write lock, thus ensure the exclusive update to the cache and unit list. Either way, we will manipulate the cache and/or the unit list so we must take a write lock now. We don't take the write bit in *addition* to the read lock because: 1. It will needlessly complicate releasing the respective lock; Under pthread_rwlock_wrlock it will deadlock, so that's wrong? Drop that point then? If not, what's your reasoning / observation? Under my lock, you hold the R, additionally take the W and then immediately release the R because you yourself won't read, just write. But mine's not the pthread_rwlock you talk about, admittedly. Yes, pthread_rwlock doesn't support upgrade rdlock to wrlock directly, so we can’t hold rdlock while trying to acquire wrlock. I will drop the first point and update the comment accordingly. 2. By separate the read/write lock, it will greatly reduce the contention at the read part, while write part is not always necessary or most unlikely once the unit hit in cache; We know that. 3. We try to balance the implementation complexity and the performance gains that fit into current cases we observed. .. by just using a pthread_rwlock. And that's the top point iff you keep it at that. That's a fair step, sure. BTW, did you look at the RELEASE semantics, respectively the note that one day (and now is that very day), we might improve on the release semantics? Can of course be incremental AFAIC Not quite understand your question about looking at the RELEASE semantics. Can you be more specific? " If folks agree on this first step then you have my OK with a catchy malloc and the discussion recorded here on the list. A second step would be RELEASE. And, depending on the underlying capabilities of available locks, further tweaks, obviously. PS: and, please, don't top-post thanks, Best Regards, Zhu, Lipeng On 1/1/1970 8:00 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On 19 April 2023 09:06:28 CEST, Lipeng Zhu via Fortran wrote: This patch try to introduce the rwlock and split the read/write to unit_root tree and unit_cache with rwlock instead of the mutex to increase CPU efficiency. In the get_gfc_unit function, the percentage to step into the insert_unit function is around 30%, in most instances, we can get the unit in the phase of reading the unit_cache or unit_root tree. So split the read/write phase by rwlock would be an approach to make it more parallel. BTW, the IPC metrics can gain around 9x in our test server with 220 cores. The benchmark we used is https://github.com/rwesson/NEAT +#define RD_TO_WRLOCK(rwlock) \ + RWUNLOCK (rwlock);\ + WRLOCK (rwlock); +#endif + diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unit.c b/libgfortran/io/unit.c index
Re: [PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
Hi!
[please do not top-post]
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 21:13:08 +0800
"Zhu, Lipeng" wrote:
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> Thanks for your questions and suggestions.
> The rwlock could allow multiple threads to have concurrent read-only
> access to the cache/unit list, only a single writer is allowed.
right.
> Write lock will not be acquired until all read lock are released.
So i must have confused rwlock with something else, something that
allows self to hold a read-lock and upgrade that to a write-lock,
purposely starving all successive incoming readers. I.e. just toggle
your RD_TO_WRLOCK impl, here, atomically. This proved to be benefical in
some situations in the past. Doesn't seem to work with your rwlock,
does it
> And I didn't change the mutex scope when refactor the code, only make a
> more fine-grained distinction for the read/write cache/unit list.
Yes of course, i can see you did that.
> I complete the comment according to your template, I will insert the
> comment in the source code in next version patch with other refinement
> by your suggestions.
> "
> Now we did not get a unit in cache and unit list, so we need to create a
> new unit, and update it to cache and unit list.
s/Now/By now/ or s/Now w/W/ and s/get/find/
"
We did not find a unit in the cache nor in the unit list, create a new
(locked) unit and insert into the unit list and cache.
Manipulating either or both the unit list and the unit cache requires to
hold a write-lock [for obvious reasons]"
Superfluous when talking about pthread_rwlock_wrlock since that
implies that even the process acquiring the wrlock has to first
release it's very own rdlock.
> Prior to update the cache and list, we need to release all read locks,
> and then immediately to acquire write lock, thus ensure the exclusive
> update to the cache and unit list.
> Either way, we will manipulate the cache and/or the unit list so we must
> take a write lock now.
> We don't take the write bit in *addition* to the read lock because:
> 1. It will needlessly complicate releasing the respective lock;
Under pthread_rwlock_wrlock it will deadlock, so that's wrong?
Drop that point then? If not, what's your reasoning / observation?
Under my lock, you hold the R, additionally take the W and then
immediately release the R because you yourself won't read, just write.
But mine's not the pthread_rwlock you talk about, admittedly.
> 2. By separate the read/write lock, it will greatly reduce the
> contention at the read part, while write part is not always necessary or
> most unlikely once the unit hit in cache;
We know that.
> 3. We try to balance the implementation complexity and the performance
> gains that fit into current cases we observed.
.. by just using a pthread_rwlock. And that's the top point iff you
keep it at that. That's a fair step, sure. BTW, did you look at the
RELEASE semantics, respectively the note that one day (and now is that
very day), we might improve on the release semantics? Can of course be
incremental AFAIC
> "
If folks agree on this first step then you have my OK with a catchy
malloc and the discussion recorded here on the list. A second step would
be RELEASE.
And, depending on the underlying capabilities of available locks,
further tweaks, obviously.
PS: and, please, don't top-post
thanks,
>
> Best Regards,
> Zhu, Lipeng
>
> On 1/1/1970 8:00 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > On 19 April 2023 09:06:28 CEST, Lipeng Zhu via Fortran
> > wrote:
> >> This patch try to introduce the rwlock and split the read/write to
> >> unit_root tree and unit_cache with rwlock instead of the mutex to
> >> increase CPU efficiency. In the get_gfc_unit function, the percentage
> >> to step into the insert_unit function is around 30%, in most instances,
> >> we can get the unit in the phase of reading the unit_cache or unit_root
> >> tree. So split the read/write phase by rwlock would be an approach to
> >> make it more parallel.
> >>
> >> BTW, the IPC metrics can gain around 9x in our test server with 220
> >> cores. The benchmark we used is https://github.com/rwesson/NEAT
> >>
> >
> >> +#define RD_TO_WRLOCK(rwlock) \
> >> + RWUNLOCK (rwlock);\
> >> + WRLOCK (rwlock);
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >
> >
> >> diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unit.c b/libgfortran/io/unit.c index
> >> 82664dc5f98..4312c5f36de 100644
> >> --- a/libgfortran/io/unit.c
> >> +++ b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
> >
> >> @@ -329,7 +335,7 @@ get_gfc_unit (int n, int do_create)
> >>int c, created = 0;
> >>
> >>NOTE ("Unit n=%d, do_create = %d", n, do_create);
> >> - LOCK (_lock);
> >> + RDLOCK (_rwlock);
> >>
> >> retry:
> >>for (c = 0; c < CACHE_SIZE; c++)
> >> @@ -350,6 +356,7 @@ retry:
> >>if (c == 0)
> >>break;
> >> }
> >> + RD_TO_WRLOCK (_rwlock);
> >
> > So I'm trying to convince myself why it's safe to unlock and only then take
> > the write lock.
> >
> > Can you please elaborate/confirm why that's ok?
> >
> > I wouldn't mind a comment like
>
Re: [PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
Hi Bernhard,
Thanks for your questions and suggestions.
The rwlock could allow multiple threads to have concurrent read-only
access to the cache/unit list, only a single writer is allowed.
Write lock will not be acquired until all read lock are released.
And I didn't change the mutex scope when refactor the code, only make a
more fine-grained distinction for the read/write cache/unit list.
I complete the comment according to your template, I will insert the
comment in the source code in next version patch with other refinement
by your suggestions.
"
Now we did not get a unit in cache and unit list, so we need to create a
new unit, and update it to cache and unit list.
Prior to update the cache and list, we need to release all read locks,
and then immediately to acquire write lock, thus ensure the exclusive
update to the cache and unit list.
Either way, we will manipulate the cache and/or the unit list so we must
take a write lock now.
We don't take the write bit in *addition* to the read lock because:
1. It will needlessly complicate releasing the respective lock;
2. By separate the read/write lock, it will greatly reduce the
contention at the read part, while write part is not always necessary or
most unlikely once the unit hit in cache;
3. We try to balance the implementation complexity and the performance
gains that fit into current cases we observed.
"
Best Regards,
Zhu, Lipeng
On 1/1/1970 8:00 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On 19 April 2023 09:06:28 CEST, Lipeng Zhu via Fortran
wrote:
This patch try to introduce the rwlock and split the read/write to
unit_root tree and unit_cache with rwlock instead of the mutex to
increase CPU efficiency. In the get_gfc_unit function, the percentage
to step into the insert_unit function is around 30%, in most instances,
we can get the unit in the phase of reading the unit_cache or unit_root
tree. So split the read/write phase by rwlock would be an approach to
make it more parallel.
BTW, the IPC metrics can gain around 9x in our test server with 220
cores. The benchmark we used is https://github.com/rwesson/NEAT
+#define RD_TO_WRLOCK(rwlock) \
+ RWUNLOCK (rwlock);\
+ WRLOCK (rwlock);
+#endif
+
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unit.c b/libgfortran/io/unit.c index
82664dc5f98..4312c5f36de 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/unit.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
@@ -329,7 +335,7 @@ get_gfc_unit (int n, int do_create)
int c, created = 0;
NOTE ("Unit n=%d, do_create = %d", n, do_create);
- LOCK (_lock);
+ RDLOCK (_rwlock);
retry:
for (c = 0; c < CACHE_SIZE; c++)
@@ -350,6 +356,7 @@ retry:
if (c == 0)
break;
}
+ RD_TO_WRLOCK (_rwlock);
So I'm trying to convince myself why it's safe to unlock and only then take the
write lock.
Can you please elaborate/confirm why that's ok?
I wouldn't mind a comment like
We can release the unit and cache read lock now. We might have to allocate a
(locked) unit, below in
do_create.
Either way, we will manipulate the cache and/or the unit list so we have to
take a write lock now.
We don't take the write bit in *addition* to the read lock because..
(that needlessly complicates releasing the respective locks / it triggers too
much contention when we..
/ ...?)
thanks,
if (p == NULL && do_create)
{
@@ -368,8 +375,8 @@ retry:
if (created)
{
/* Newly created units have their lock held already
-from insert_unit. Just unlock UNIT_LOCK and return. */
- UNLOCK (_lock);
+from insert_unit. Just unlock UNIT_RWLOCK and return. */
+ RWUNLOCK (_rwlock);
return p;
}
@@ -380,7 +387,7 @@ found:
if (! TRYLOCK (>lock))
{
/* assert (p->closed == 0); */
- UNLOCK (_lock);
+ RWUNLOCK (_rwlock);
return p;
}
@@ -388,14 +395,14 @@ found:
}
- UNLOCK (_lock);
+ RWUNLOCK (_rwlock);
if (p != NULL && (p->child_dtio == 0))
{
LOCK (>lock);
if (p->closed)
{
- LOCK (_lock);
+ WRLOCK (_rwlock);
UNLOCK (>lock);
if (predec_waiting_locked (p) == 0)
destroy_unit_mutex (p);
@@ -593,8 +600,8 @@ init_units (void)
#endif
#endif
-#ifndef __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT
- __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (_lock);
+#if (!defined(__GTHREAD_RWLOCK_INIT) &&
+!defined(__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT))
+ __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (_rwlock);
#endif
if (sizeof (max_offset) == 8)
Re: [PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
On 19 April 2023 09:06:28 CEST, Lipeng Zhu via Fortran
wrote:
>This patch try to introduce the rwlock and split the read/write to
>unit_root tree and unit_cache with rwlock instead of the mutex to
>increase CPU efficiency. In the get_gfc_unit function, the percentage
>to step into the insert_unit function is around 30%, in most instances,
>we can get the unit in the phase of reading the unit_cache or unit_root
>tree. So split the read/write phase by rwlock would be an approach to
>make it more parallel.
>
>BTW, the IPC metrics can gain around 9x in our test
>server with 220 cores. The benchmark we used is
>https://github.com/rwesson/NEAT
>
>+#define RD_TO_WRLOCK(rwlock) \
>+ RWUNLOCK (rwlock);\
>+ WRLOCK (rwlock);
>+#endif
>+
>diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unit.c b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
>index 82664dc5f98..4312c5f36de 100644
>--- a/libgfortran/io/unit.c
>+++ b/libgfortran/io/unit.c
>@@ -329,7 +335,7 @@ get_gfc_unit (int n, int do_create)
> int c, created = 0;
>
> NOTE ("Unit n=%d, do_create = %d", n, do_create);
>- LOCK (_lock);
>+ RDLOCK (_rwlock);
>
> retry:
> for (c = 0; c < CACHE_SIZE; c++)
>@@ -350,6 +356,7 @@ retry:
> if (c == 0)
> break;
> }
>+ RD_TO_WRLOCK (_rwlock);
So I'm trying to convince myself why it's safe to unlock and only then take the
write lock.
Can you please elaborate/confirm why that's ok?
I wouldn't mind a comment like
We can release the unit and cache read lock now. We might have to allocate a
(locked) unit, below in do_create.
Either way, we will manipulate the cache and/or the unit list so we have to
take a write lock now.
We don't take the write bit in *addition* to the read lock because..
(that needlessly complicates releasing the respective locks / it triggers too
much contention when we.. / ...?)
thanks,
>
> if (p == NULL && do_create)
> {
>@@ -368,8 +375,8 @@ retry:
> if (created)
> {
> /* Newly created units have their lock held already
>- from insert_unit. Just unlock UNIT_LOCK and return. */
>- UNLOCK (_lock);
>+ from insert_unit. Just unlock UNIT_RWLOCK and return. */
>+ RWUNLOCK (_rwlock);
> return p;
> }
>
>@@ -380,7 +387,7 @@ found:
> if (! TRYLOCK (>lock))
> {
> /* assert (p->closed == 0); */
>-UNLOCK (_lock);
>+RWUNLOCK (_rwlock);
> return p;
> }
>
>@@ -388,14 +395,14 @@ found:
> }
>
>
>- UNLOCK (_lock);
>+ RWUNLOCK (_rwlock);
>
> if (p != NULL && (p->child_dtio == 0))
> {
> LOCK (>lock);
> if (p->closed)
> {
>-LOCK (_lock);
>+WRLOCK (_rwlock);
> UNLOCK (>lock);
> if (predec_waiting_locked (p) == 0)
> destroy_unit_mutex (p);
>@@ -593,8 +600,8 @@ init_units (void)
> #endif
> #endif
>
>-#ifndef __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT
>- __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (_lock);
>+#if (!defined(__GTHREAD_RWLOCK_INIT) && !defined(__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT))
>+ __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (_rwlock);
> #endif
>
> if (sizeof (max_offset) == 8)
Re: [PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 14:51, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
>
> On 19 April 2023 09:06:28 CEST, Lipeng Zhu via Fortran
> wrote:
>
> >+#ifdef __GTHREAD_RWLOCK_INIT
> >+#define RWLOCK_DEBUG_ADD(rwlock) do { \
> >+aio_rwlock_debug *n; \
> >+n = malloc (sizeof(aio_rwlock_debug));\
>
> My malloc can fail.
Sorry, i hit send too early.
Please use xmalloc as defined in libgfortran/runtime/memory.c
PS: IIRC we have likely() / unlikely() macros in libgfortran, so you
may want to check if you want to annotate some conditions accordingly
if predict gets it wrong.
thanks,
>
> >+n->prev = TAIL_RWLOCK_DEBUG_QUEUE;\
> >+if (n->prev) \
> >+ n->prev->next = n; \
> >+n->next = NULL; \
> >+n->line = __LINE__; \
> >+n->func = __FUNCTION__; \
> >+n->rw = rwlock; \
> >+if (!aio_rwlock_debug_head) { \
> >+ aio_rwlock_debug_head = n; \
> >+} \
> >+ } while (0)
> >+
>
Re: [PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
On 19 April 2023 09:06:28 CEST, Lipeng Zhu via Fortran
wrote:
>+#ifdef __GTHREAD_RWLOCK_INIT
>+#define RWLOCK_DEBUG_ADD(rwlock) do { \
>+aio_rwlock_debug *n; \
>+n = malloc (sizeof(aio_rwlock_debug));\
My malloc can fail.
>+n->prev = TAIL_RWLOCK_DEBUG_QUEUE;\
>+if (n->prev) \
>+ n->prev->next = n; \
>+n->next = NULL; \
>+n->line = __LINE__; \
>+n->func = __FUNCTION__; \
>+n->rw = rwlock; \
>+if (!aio_rwlock_debug_head) { \
>+ aio_rwlock_debug_head = n; \
>+} \
>+ } while (0)
>+
[PATCH v3] libgfortran: Replace mutex with rwlock
This patch try to introduce the rwlock and split the read/write to
unit_root tree and unit_cache with rwlock instead of the mutex to
increase CPU efficiency. In the get_gfc_unit function, the percentage
to step into the insert_unit function is around 30%, in most instances,
we can get the unit in the phase of reading the unit_cache or unit_root
tree. So split the read/write phase by rwlock would be an approach to
make it more parallel.
BTW, the IPC metrics can gain around 9x in our test
server with 220 cores. The benchmark we used is
https://github.com/rwesson/NEAT
libgcc/ChangeLog:
* gthr-posix.h (__GTHREAD_RWLOCK_INIT): New macro
(__gthrw): New function
(__gthread_rwlock_rdlock): New function
(__gthread_rwlock_tryrdlock): New function
(__gthread_rwlock_wrlock): New function
(__gthread_rwlock_trywrlock): New function
(__gthread_rwlock_unlock): New function
libgfortran/ChangeLog:
* io/async.c (DEBUG_LINE): New
* io/async.h (RWLOCK_DEBUG_ADD): New macro
(CHECK_RDLOCK): New macro
(CHECK_WRLOCK): New macro
(TAIL_RWLOCK_DEBUG_QUEUE): New macro
(IN_RWLOCK_DEBUG_QUEUE): New macro
(RDLOCK): New macro
(WRLOCK): New macro
(RWUNLOCK): New macro
(RD_TO_WRLOCK): New macro
(INTERN_RDLOCK): New macro
(INTERN_WRLOCK): New macro
(INTERN_RWUNLOCK): New macro
* io/io.h (internal_proto): Define unit_rwlock
* io/transfer.c (st_read_done_worker): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
(st_write_done_worker): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
* io/unit.c (get_gfc_unit): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
(if): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
(close_unit_1): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
(close_units): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
(newunit_alloc): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
* io/unix.c (flush_all_units): Relace unit_lock with unit_rwlock
---
v1 -> v2:
Limit the pthread_rwlock usage in libgcc only when __cplusplus isn't defined.
v2 -> v3:
Rebase the patch with trunk branch.
Signed-off-by: Lipeng Zhu
---
libgcc/gthr-posix.h | 60 +++
libgfortran/io/async.c| 4 +
libgfortran/io/async.h| 151 ++
libgfortran/io/io.h | 15 ++--
libgfortran/io/transfer.c | 8 +-
libgfortran/io/unit.c | 65
libgfortran/io/unix.c | 16 ++--
7 files changed, 273 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libgcc/gthr-posix.h b/libgcc/gthr-posix.h
index aebcfdd9f4c..73283082997 100644
--- a/libgcc/gthr-posix.h
+++ b/libgcc/gthr-posix.h
@@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ typedef pthread_t __gthread_t;
typedef pthread_key_t __gthread_key_t;
typedef pthread_once_t __gthread_once_t;
typedef pthread_mutex_t __gthread_mutex_t;
+#ifndef __cplusplus
+typedef pthread_rwlock_t __gthread_rwlock_t;
+#endif
typedef pthread_mutex_t __gthread_recursive_mutex_t;
typedef pthread_cond_t __gthread_cond_t;
typedef struct timespec __gthread_time_t;
@@ -58,6 +61,9 @@ typedef struct timespec __gthread_time_t;
#define __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER
#define __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION __gthread_mutex_init_function
+#ifndef __cplusplus
+#define __GTHREAD_RWLOCK_INIT PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER
+#endif
#define __GTHREAD_ONCE_INIT PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT
#if defined(PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER)
#define __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER
@@ -135,6 +141,13 @@ __gthrw(pthread_mutexattr_init)
__gthrw(pthread_mutexattr_settype)
__gthrw(pthread_mutexattr_destroy)
+#ifndef __cplusplus
+__gthrw(pthread_rwlock_rdlock)
+__gthrw(pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock)
+__gthrw(pthread_rwlock_wrlock)
+__gthrw(pthread_rwlock_trywrlock)
+__gthrw(pthread_rwlock_unlock)
+#endif
#if defined(_LIBOBJC) || defined(_LIBOBJC_WEAK)
/* Objective-C. */
@@ -885,6 +898,53 @@ __gthread_cond_destroy (__gthread_cond_t* __cond)
return __gthrw_(pthread_cond_destroy) (__cond);
}
+#ifndef __cplusplus
+static inline int
+__gthread_rwlock_rdlock (__gthread_rwlock_t *__rwlock)
+{
+ if (__gthread_active_p ())
+return __gthrw_(pthread_rwlock_rdlock) (__rwlock);
+ else
+return 0;
+}
+
+static inline int
+__gthread_rwlock_tryrdlock (__gthread_rwlock_t *__rwlock)
+{
+ if (__gthread_active_p ())
+return __gthrw_(pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock) (__rwlock);
+ else
+return 0;
+}
+
+static inline int
+__gthread_rwlock_wrlock (__gthread_rwlock_t *__rwlock)
+{
+ if (__gthread_active_p ())
+return __gthrw_(pthread_rwlock_wrlock) (__rwlock);
+ else
+return 0;
+}
+
+static inline int
+__gthread_rwlock_trywrlock (__gthread_rwlock_t *__rwlock)
+{
+ if (__gthread_active_p ())
+return __gthrw_(pthread_rwlock_trywrlock) (__rwlock);
+ else
+return 0;
+}
+
+static inline int
+__gthread_rwlock_unlock (__gthread_rwlock_t *__rwlock)
+{
+ if (__gthread_active_p ())
+return __gthrw_(pthread_rwlock_unlock) (__rwlock);
+ else
+return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
#endif /* _LIBOBJC */
#endif /* ! GCC_GTHR_POSIX_H */
diff --git
