[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-215?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Sebor updated STDCXX-215:
--------------------------------
Component/s: Thread Safety
Severity: Resource Leak
> stdcxx not async-cancel safe
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: STDCXX-215
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-215
> Project: C++ Standard Library
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Thread Safety
> Affects Versions: 4.1.2, 4.1.3
> Environment: all
> Reporter: Martin Sebor
> Priority: Minor
>
> Moved from the Rogue Wave bug tracking database:
> ****Created By: sebor @ Apr 06, 2004 09:02:04 AM****
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: async safe IOstreams
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dennis Handly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Do you claim the RW Standard C++ Library (iostreams in particular)
> is async cancel safe? With pthread_cancel?
> We have a customer where it hangs after one thread is canceled.
> (It was holding a mutex.)
> #7 0x20000000797990d0:0 in _HPMutexWrapper::lock+0x70 ()
> from /usr/lib/hpux32/libstd_v2.so.1
> #8 0x4014a50:0 in __rw::__rw_mutex_base::_C_acquire (this=0x795b56c4)
> at /opt/aCC/include_std/rw/stdmutex.h:254
> #9 0x401b500:0 in __rw::__rw_guard::__rw_guard (this=0x7fffe200,
> __mutex=0x795b56c4) at /opt/aCC/include_std/rw/stdmutex.h:476
> #10 0x40198b0:0 in std::ostream::sentry::sentry (this=0x7fffe200,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]) at /opt/aCC/include_std/ostream:97
> #11 0x4018170:0 in std::basic_ostream<char,std::char_traits<char> >&
> __rw::__rw_
> insert<char,std::char_traits<char>,char const> ([EMAIL PROTECTED],
> __s=0x40132f8 "****** Creation Thread ", __len=23, __width=0)
> at /opt/aCC/include_std/ostream.cc:165
> #12 0x40174e0:0 in std::basic_ostream<char,std::char_traits<char> >&
> std::operat
> or<<<std::char_traits<char> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED],
> __s=0x40132f8 "****** Creation Thread ")
> at /opt/aCC/include_std/ostream:510
> #13 0x401e780:0 in main () at TestThread.cpp:49
> Does it work on Tru64 because they have more atomic operations and don't
> need mutexes as much as we do?
> Since __rw_guard is used above, I don't see this is specific to aC++.
> (Though I'm not sure why we need to serialize a call to good():
> _C_ok = _C_strm._C_opfx ().good ();
> )
> Or do you actually call pthread_setcancelstate to block and unblock?
> ============================================================
> >From: "Hofherr, Birgit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When compiling with -AA a multithreaded C++ program, and executing it,
> it hangs on a pthread_join when the thread contains cout << ..<<endl.
> When the same program is compiled -AP no problem occurs.
> It looks like the iostream package from libstd_v2.2 does not implement
> the lazy I/O scheme, which means the output ends up on a endl or a cin
> input. This brings up for the enclosed multithreaded program and for
> the customer who would like to have the cout << .. << endl; performed
> in one C statement write like for the -AP option.
> ============================================================
> >From: "Hofherr, Birgit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I just got this additional info from the customer:
> Please add a sleep(1) before the call to pthread_cancel. I afterwards
> tested the program on Tru64 and it fails without it.
> The problem is that, with -AA, cout<<..<<endl; are not monolithic (i.e.:
> expressed with a write(1,string,strlen(string)) contrary to the -AP
> option. This is what the customer would like with -AA.
> >From: "Hofherr, Birgit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Some more analysis from the customer - regarding the lazy io
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Vouters, Philippe
> After thorough analysis, /usr/lib/libstd_v2 (option -AA) must implement
> a lazy I/O for cin, cout and cerr. This means that the operator << must
> buffer data which is added a "\n" at endl time and writes out the buffer
> to fd=1. If a operator >> comes up in the code stream, it must write out
> cout and cerr buffers and then do input.
> I believe this is the way /usr/lib/libstd works (option -AP). Anyway
> this the way the customer would like and looks to work like on Tru64
> with -std strict_ansi C++ compilation.
> Philipppe Vouters (HP Services, Les Ulis, France)
> ============================================================
> >From: Dennis Handly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: "Hofherr, Birgit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >When compiling with -AA a multithreaded C++ program, and executing it,
> >it hangs on a pthread_join when the thread contains cout << ..<<endl.
> It doesn't hang on the pthread_join, it hangs after the pthread_cancel.
> pthread_cancel is not supported with aC++'s runtime.
> The user must not use PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE unless no iostream, etc.
> code is being used.
> pthread_setcancelstate(3T) says:
> NOTES
> Only functions that are async-cancel safe should be called from a
> thread that is asynchronously cancelable.
> >When the same program is compiled -Aa no problem occurs.
> (They mean with -AP.) There are no mutexes used. A pthread_cancel
> on a string operation may also hang things.
> >This brings up for the enclosed multithreaded program and for
> >the customer who would like to have the cout << .. << endl; performed
> >in one C statement write like for the -AP option.
> Birgit
> This can't be done with -AA. Each insertion is done with a mutex lock.
> for -AP, there is a separate buffer with no mutexes.
> >From: "Hofherr, Birgit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Please add a sleep(1) before the call to pthread_cancel. I afterwards
> >tested the program on Tru64 and it fails without it.
> The application needs to remove pthread_cancel or make sure
> pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE) is only used when not
> in iostreams.
> I've added code with -DWORK to disable and enable correctly.
> >The problem is that, with -AA, cout<<..<<endl; are not monolithic (i.e.:
> >expressed with a write(1,string,strlen(string)) contrary to the -AP
> >option. This is what the customer would like with -AA.
> This change can't be done. It isn't part of RW's implementation.
> >From: Vouters, Philippe
> >After thorough analysis, /usr/lib/libstd_v2 (option -AA) must implement
> >a lazy I/O for cin, cout and cerr. This means that the operator << must
> >buffer data which is added a "\n" at endl time and writes out the buffer
> >to fd=1.
> The user could do this by using strstream and fprintf.
> >I believe this is the way /usr/lib/libstd works (option -AP).
> -AP uses separate buffers.
> >Anyway this the way the customer would like and looks to work like on Tru64
> >with -std strict_ansi C++ compilation.
> Philipppe Vouters (HP Services, Les Ulis, France)
> I'm not sure how Tru64 can do this since they also use RW.
> ============================================================
> >From: "Hofherr, Birgit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is the response from XXX - Is this something RW or we might consider?
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Vouters, Philippe
> I do not know much about the internals of the Tru64 C++ library, but I
> think this pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE,&o)/
> pthread_setcancelstate(o,NULL) (to restore in the case of the customer's
> program the PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE state) is performed inside the
> library. Couldn't it be implemented inside libstd_v2 to make the
> iostream async_safe ? Or by the compiler when -mt ? Kind regards from
> home. Philippe Vouters (HP Services, Les Ulis, France);
> ============================================================
> >From: Birgit Hofherr (Languages Expert Center) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A heads up - XXX have submitted a serious enhancement request to have
> the aC++ iostreams behave the same way as Tru64's (compiled with -pthread
> and -std strict_ansi). JAGaf18057 requests a change in either the compiler
> when compiling with -mt or in the RW library so that iostreams are async-safe
> -
> like the Tru64 implementation.
> They are ready to escalate this.
> Please let me know what we can do.
> Birgit
> ============================================================
> >From: Dennis Handly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> XXX is claiming that this application works fine on Tru64.
> Since you guys use RW, how does it work if the user uses pthread_cancel?
> Is it because we use mutexes and Tru64 uses atomic operations?
> ============================================================
> >From: Dennis Handly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: "Hofherr, Birgit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >This is the response from XXX - Is this something RW or we might consider?
> Not likely. It will make performance worse for customers that don't care
> about it.
> >They are ready to escalate this.
> >Please let me know what we can do.
> Nothing, we will have to reject it.
> Implementing it will kill performance for everyone using -mt.
> The most we can do is document it in big bold letters.
> ============================================================
> TestThread.cpp:
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <string>
> #include <iostream>
> using std::string;
> using namespace std;
> #define THREADS_NUMBER 1000
> void *faire(void *p) {
> int o;
> pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE, &o);
> pthread_setcanceltype(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DEFERRED, &o);
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i <= 100000; i++) {
> // PROBLEM WHEN cout IS USED HERE
> #ifdef WORK
> pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE, &o);
> #endif
> cout << "C++faire ..." << (int)(long)p << endl;
> #ifdef WORK
> pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE, &o);
> #endif
> // OK WITH printf
> printf("C faire ...%d\n", (int)(long)p);
> pthread_testcancel();
> sleep(1);
> }
> return NULL;
> }
> int main() {
> int error;
> cout << "Test: Thread" << endl;
> pthread_t _thread[THREADS_NUMBER];
> pthread_attr_t _attributs;
> error = pthread_attr_init(&_attributs);
> if (error != 0) {
> cout << "Error attr_init" << endl;
> fprintf(stderr, "Error attr_init\n");
> return 1;
> }
> error = pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&_attributs,
> PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE);
> if (error != 0) {
> fprintf(stderr, "Error setdetachstate\n");
> return 1;
> }
> int k, i;
> for(k=0; k < THREADS_NUMBER; k++) {
> cout << "****** Creation Thread " << k << " ******" << endl;
> cout << "* Thread " << k << " - create" << endl;
> error = pthread_create(&_thread[k], &_attributs, faire, (void*)(long)k);
> if (error != 0) {
> fprintf(stderr, "Error create\n");
> return 1;
> }
> sleep(1);
> fprintf(stderr, "* Thread %d - cancel\n", k);
> error = pthread_cancel(_thread[k]);
> if (error != 0) {
> fprintf(stderr, "Error cancel\n");
> return 1;
> }
> fprintf(stderr, "* Thread %d - join\n", k);
> error = pthread_join(_thread[k], NULL);
> if (error != 0) {
> fprintf(stderr, "Error join\n");
> return 1;
> }
> //cout << "Attente 2s ..." << endl;
> //sleep(2);
> }
> cout << "Attente 4s" << endl;
> sleep(4);
> cout << "Test: FIN" << endl;
> }
> ****Modified By: sebor @ Apr 06, 2004 09:04:02 AM****
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: async safe IOstreams
> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:01:56 -0600
> From: Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dennis Handly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dennis Handly wrote:
> > Do you claim the RW Standard C++ Library (iostreams in particular)
> > is async cancel safe? With pthread_cancel?
> No, we're certainly not that. There are mutexes all over the
> place in iostreams. FWIW, I don't know of any implementation
> that is.
> >
> > We have a customer where it hangs after one thread is canceled.
> > (It was holding a mutex.)
> Right.
> >
> ...
> > Does it work on Tru64 because they have more atomic operations and don't
> > need mutexes as much as we do?
> No, it's not safe on any platform.
> > Since __rw_guard is used above, I don't see this is specific to aC++.
> > (Though I'm not sure why we need to serialize a call to good():
> > _C_ok = _C_strm._C_opfx ().good ();
> > )
> >
> > Or do you actually call pthread_setcancelstate to block and unblock?
> No, but it's on my to-do list.
> Martin
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
