|
|
@@ -1,1039 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
-<HTML>
|
|
|
-<HEAD>
|
|
|
-<TITLE>LinuxThreads Frequently Asked Questions</TITLE>
|
|
|
-</HEAD>
|
|
|
-<BODY>
|
|
|
-<H1 ALIGN=center>LinuxThreads Frequently Asked Questions <BR>
|
|
|
- (with answers)</H1>
|
|
|
-<H2 ALIGN=center>[For LinuxThreads version 0.8]</H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR><P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#A">A. The big picture</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#B">B. Getting more information</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#C">C. Issues related to the C library</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#D">D. Problems, weird behaviors, potential bugs</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#E">E. Missing functions, wrong types, etc</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#F">F. C++ issues</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#G">G. Debugging LinuxThreads programs</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#H">H. Compiling multithreaded code; errno madness</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#I">I. X-Windows and other libraries</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#J">J. Signals and threads</A><BR>
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#K">K. Internals of LinuxThreads</A><P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="A">A. The big picture</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="A.1">A.1: What is LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads is a Linux library for multi-threaded programming.
|
|
|
-It implements the Posix 1003.1c API (Application Programming
|
|
|
-Interface) for threads. It runs on any Linux system with kernel 2.0.0
|
|
|
-or more recent, and a suitable C library (see section <A HREF="C">C</A>).
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="A.2">A.2: What are threads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-A thread is a sequential flow of control through a program.
|
|
|
-Multi-threaded programming is, thus, a form of parallel programming
|
|
|
-where several threads of control are executing concurrently in the
|
|
|
-program. All threads execute in the same memory space, and can
|
|
|
-therefore work concurrently on shared data.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Multi-threaded programming differs from Unix-style multi-processing in
|
|
|
-that all threads share the same memory space (and a few other system
|
|
|
-resources, such as file descriptors), instead of running in their own
|
|
|
-memory space as is the case with Unix processes.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Threads are useful for two reasons. First, they allow a program to
|
|
|
-exploit multi-processor machines: the threads can run in parallel on
|
|
|
-several processors, allowing a single program to divide its work
|
|
|
-between several processors, thus running faster than a single-threaded
|
|
|
-program, which runs on only one processor at a time. Second, some
|
|
|
-programs are best expressed as several threads of control that
|
|
|
-communicate together, rather than as one big monolithic sequential
|
|
|
-program. Examples include server programs, overlapping asynchronous
|
|
|
-I/O, and graphical user interfaces.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="A.3">A.3: What is POSIX 1003.1c?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-It's an API for multi-threaded programming standardized by IEEE as
|
|
|
-part of the POSIX standards. Most Unix vendors have endorsed the
|
|
|
-POSIX 1003.1c standard. Implementations of the 1003.1c API are
|
|
|
-already available under Sun Solaris 2.5, Digital Unix 4.0,
|
|
|
-Silicon Graphics IRIX 6, and should soon be available from other
|
|
|
-vendors such as IBM and HP. More generally, the 1003.1c API is
|
|
|
-replacing relatively quickly the proprietary threads library that were
|
|
|
-developed previously under Unix, such as Mach cthreads, Solaris
|
|
|
-threads, and IRIX sprocs. Thus, multithreaded programs using the
|
|
|
-1003.1c API are likely to run unchanged on a wide variety of Unix
|
|
|
-platforms.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="A.4">A.4: What is the status of LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads implements almost all of Posix 1003.1c, as well as a few
|
|
|
-extensions. The only part of LinuxThreads that does not conform yet
|
|
|
-to Posix is signal handling (see section <A HREF="#J">J</A>). Apart
|
|
|
-from the signal stuff, all the Posix 1003.1c base functionality,
|
|
|
-as well as a number of optional extensions, are provided and conform
|
|
|
-to the standard (to the best of my knowledge).
|
|
|
-The signal stuff is hard to get right, at least without special kernel
|
|
|
-support, and while I'm definitely looking at ways to implement the
|
|
|
-Posix behavior for signals, this might take a long time before it's
|
|
|
-completed.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="A.5">A.5: How stable is LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The basic functionality (thread creation and termination, mutexes,
|
|
|
-conditions, semaphores) is very stable. Several industrial-strength
|
|
|
-programs, such as the AOL multithreaded Web server, use LinuxThreads
|
|
|
-and seem quite happy about it. There used to be some rough edges in
|
|
|
-the LinuxThreads / C library interface with libc 5, but glibc 2
|
|
|
-fixes all of those problems and is now the standard C library on major
|
|
|
-Linux distributions (see section <A HREF="#C">C</A>). <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="B">B. Getting more information</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="B.1">B.1: What are good books and other sources of
|
|
|
-information on POSIX threads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The FAQ for comp.programming.threads lists several books:
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://www.serpentine.com/~bos/threads-faq/">http://www.serpentine.com/~bos/threads-faq/</A>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-There are also some online tutorials. Follow the links from the
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads web page:
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/linuxthreads">http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/linuxthreads</A>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="B.2">B.2: I'd like to be informed of future developments on
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads. Is there a mailing list for this purpose?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-I post LinuxThreads-related announcements on the newsgroup
|
|
|
-<A HREF="news:comp.os.linux.announce">comp.os.linux.announce</A>,
|
|
|
-and also on the mailing list
|
|
|
-<code>linux-threads@magenet.com</code>.
|
|
|
-You can subscribe to the latter by writing
|
|
|
-<A HREF="mailto:majordomo@magenet.com">majordomo@magenet.com</A>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="B.3">B.3: What are good places for discussing
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-For questions about programming with POSIX threads in general, use
|
|
|
-the newsgroup
|
|
|
-<A HREF="news:comp.programming.threads">comp.programming.threads</A>.
|
|
|
-Be sure you read the
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://www.serpentine.com/~bos/threads-faq/">FAQ</A>
|
|
|
-for this group before you post.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-For Linux-specific questions, use
|
|
|
-<A
|
|
|
-HREF="news:comp.os.linux.development.apps">comp.os.linux.development.apps</A>
|
|
|
-and <A
|
|
|
-HREF="news:comp.os.linux.development.kernel">comp.os.linux.development.kernel</A>.
|
|
|
-The latter is especially appropriate for questions relative to the
|
|
|
-interface between the kernel and LinuxThreads.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="B.4">B.4: How should I report a possible bug in
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If you're using glibc 2, the best way by far is to use the
|
|
|
-<code>glibcbug</code> script to mail a bug report to the glibc
|
|
|
-maintainers. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If you're using an older libc, or don't have the <code>glibcbug</code>
|
|
|
-script on your machine, then e-mail me directly
|
|
|
-(<code>Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr</code>). <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-In both cases, before sending the bug report, make sure that it is not
|
|
|
-addressed already in this FAQ. Also, try to send a short program that
|
|
|
-reproduces the weird behavior you observed. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="B.5">B.5: I'd like to read the POSIX 1003.1c standard. Is
|
|
|
-it available online?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Unfortunately, no. POSIX standards are copyrighted by IEEE, and
|
|
|
-IEEE does not distribute them freely. You can buy paper copies from
|
|
|
-IEEE, but the price is fairly high ($120 or so). If you disagree with
|
|
|
-this policy and you're an IEEE member, be sure to let them know.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-On the other hand, you probably don't want to read the standard. It's
|
|
|
-very hard to read, written in standard-ese, and targeted to
|
|
|
-implementors who already know threads inside-out. A good book on
|
|
|
-POSIX threads provides the same information in a much more readable form.
|
|
|
-I can personally recommend Dave Butenhof's book, <CITE>Programming
|
|
|
-with POSIX threads</CITE> (Addison-Wesley). Butenhof was part of the
|
|
|
-POSIX committee and also designed the Digital Unix implementations of
|
|
|
-POSIX threads, and it shows.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Another good source of information is the X/Open Group Single Unix
|
|
|
-specification which is available both
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://www.rdg.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/index.html">on-line</A>
|
|
|
-and as a
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://www.UNIX-systems.org/gosolo2/">book and CD/ROM</A>.
|
|
|
-That specification includes pretty much all the POSIX standards,
|
|
|
-including 1003.1c, with some extensions and clarifications.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="C">C. Issues related to the C library</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="C.1">C.1: Which version of the C library should I use
|
|
|
-with LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The best choice by far is glibc 2, a.k.a. libc 6. It offers very good
|
|
|
-support for multi-threading, and LinuxThreads has been closely
|
|
|
-integrated with glibc 2. The glibc 2 distribution contains the
|
|
|
-sources of a specially adapted version of LinuxThreads.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-glibc 2 comes preinstalled as the default C library on several Linux
|
|
|
-distributions, such as RedHat 5 and up, and Debian 2.
|
|
|
-Those distributions include the version of LinuxThreads matching
|
|
|
-glibc 2.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="C.2">C.2: My system has libc 5 preinstalled, not glibc
|
|
|
-2. Can I still use LinuxThreads?</H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Yes, but you're likely to run into some problems, as libc 5 only
|
|
|
-offers minimal support for threads and contains some bugs that affect
|
|
|
-multithreaded programs. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The versions of libc 5 that work best with LinuxThreads are
|
|
|
-libc 5.2.18 on the one hand, and libc 5.4.12 or later on the other hand.
|
|
|
-Avoid 5.3.12 and 5.4.7: these have problems with the per-thread errno
|
|
|
-variable. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="C.3">C.3: So, should I switch to glibc 2, or stay with a
|
|
|
-recent libc 5?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-I'd recommend you switch to glibc 2. Even for single-threaded
|
|
|
-programs, glibc 2 is more solid and more standard-conformant than libc
|
|
|
-5. And the shortcomings of libc 5 almost preclude any serious
|
|
|
-multi-threaded programming.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Switching an already installed
|
|
|
-system from libc 5 to glibc 2 is not completely straightforward.
|
|
|
-See the <A HREF="http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/Glibc2-HOWTO.html">Glibc2
|
|
|
-HOWTO</A> for more information. Much easier is (re-)installing a
|
|
|
-Linux distribution based on glibc 2, such as RedHat 6.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="C.4">C.4: Where can I find glibc 2 and the version of
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads that goes with it?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-On <code>prep.ai.mit.edu</code> and its many, many mirrors around the world.
|
|
|
-See <A
|
|
|
-HREF="http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html">http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html</A>
|
|
|
-for a list of mirrors.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="C.5">C.5: Where can I find libc 5 and the version of
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads that goes with it?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-For libc 5, see <A HREF="ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/GCC/"><code>ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/GCC/</code></A>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-For the libc 5 version of LinuxThreads, see
|
|
|
-<A HREF="ftp://ftp.inria.fr/INRIA/Projects/cristal/Xavier.Leroy/linuxthreads/">ftp://ftp.inria.fr/INRIA/Projects/cristal/Xavier.Leroy/linuxthreads/</A>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="C.6">C.6: How can I recompile the glibc 2 version of the
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads sources?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-You must transfer the whole glibc sources, then drop the LinuxThreads
|
|
|
-sources in the <code>linuxthreads/</code> subdirectory, then recompile
|
|
|
-glibc as a whole. There are now too many inter-dependencies between
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads and glibc 2 to allow separate re-compilation of LinuxThreads.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="C.7">C.7: What is the correspondence between LinuxThreads
|
|
|
-version numbers, libc version numbers, and RedHat version
|
|
|
-numbers?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Here is a summary. (Information on Linux distributions other than
|
|
|
-RedHat are welcome.)<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<TABLE>
|
|
|
-<TR><TD>LinuxThreads </TD> <TD>C library</TD> <TD>RedHat</TD></TR>
|
|
|
-<TR><TD>0.7, 0.71 (for libc 5)</TD> <TD>libc 5.x</TD> <TD>RH 4.2</TD></TR>
|
|
|
-<TR><TD>0.7, 0.71 (for glibc 2)</TD> <TD>glibc 2.0.x</TD> <TD>RH 5.x</TD></TR>
|
|
|
-<TR><TD>0.8</TD> <TD>glibc 2.1.1</TD> <TD>RH 6.0</TD></TR>
|
|
|
-<TR><TD>0.8</TD> <TD>glibc 2.1.2</TD> <TD>not yet released</TD></TR>
|
|
|
-</TABLE>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="D">D. Problems, weird behaviors, potential bugs</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.1">D.1: When I compile LinuxThreads, I run into problems in
|
|
|
-file <code>libc_r/dirent.c</code></A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-You probably mean:
|
|
|
-<PRE>
|
|
|
- libc_r/dirent.c:94: structure has no member named `dd_lock'
|
|
|
-</PRE>
|
|
|
-I haven't actually seen this problem, but several users reported it.
|
|
|
-My understanding is that something is wrong in the include files of
|
|
|
-your Linux installation (<code>/usr/include/*</code>). Make sure
|
|
|
-you're using a supported version of the libc 5 library. (See question <A
|
|
|
-HREF="#C.2">C.2</A>).<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.2">D.2: When I compile LinuxThreads, I run into problems with
|
|
|
-<CODE>/usr/include/sched.h</CODE>: there are several occurrences of
|
|
|
-<CODE>_p</CODE> that the C compiler does not understand</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Yes, <CODE>/usr/include/sched.h</CODE> that comes with libc 5.3.12 is broken.
|
|
|
-Replace it with the <code>sched.h</code> file contained in the
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads distribution. But really you should not be using libc
|
|
|
-5.3.12 with LinuxThreads! (See question <A HREF="#C.2">C.1</A>.)<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.3">D.3: My program does <CODE>fdopen()</CODE> on a file
|
|
|
-descriptor opened on a pipe. When I link it with LinuxThreads,
|
|
|
-<CODE>fdopen()</CODE> always returns NULL!</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-You're using one of the buggy versions of libc (5.3.12, 5.4.7., etc).
|
|
|
-See question <A HREF="#C.1">C.1</A> above.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.4">D.4: My program creates a lot of threads, and after
|
|
|
-a while <CODE>pthread_create()</CODE> no longer returns!</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-This is known bug in the version of LinuxThreads that comes with glibc
|
|
|
-2.1.1. An upgrade to 2.1.2 is recommended. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.5">D.5: When I'm running a program that creates N
|
|
|
-threads, <code>top</code> or <code>ps</code>
|
|
|
-display N+2 processes that are running my program. What do all these
|
|
|
-processes correspond to?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Due to the general "one process per thread" model, there's one process
|
|
|
-for the initial thread and N processes for the threads it created
|
|
|
-using <CODE>pthread_create</CODE>. That leaves one process
|
|
|
-unaccounted for. That extra process corresponds to the "thread
|
|
|
-manager" thread, a thread created internally by LinuxThreads to handle
|
|
|
-thread creation and thread termination. This extra thread is asleep
|
|
|
-most of the time.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.6">D.6: Scheduling seems to be very unfair when there
|
|
|
-is strong contention on a mutex: instead of giving the mutex to each
|
|
|
-thread in turn, it seems that it's almost always the same thread that
|
|
|
-gets the mutex. Isn't this completely broken behavior?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-That behavior has mostly disappeared in recent releases of
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads (version 0.8 and up). It was fairly common in older
|
|
|
-releases, though.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-What happens in LinuxThreads 0.7 and before is the following: when a
|
|
|
-thread unlocks a mutex, all other threads that were waiting on the
|
|
|
-mutex are sent a signal which makes them runnable. However, the
|
|
|
-kernel scheduler may or may not restart them immediately. If the
|
|
|
-thread that unlocked the mutex tries to lock it again immediately
|
|
|
-afterwards, it is likely that it will succeed, because the threads
|
|
|
-haven't yet restarted. This results in an apparently very unfair
|
|
|
-behavior, when the same thread repeatedly locks and unlocks the mutex,
|
|
|
-while other threads can't lock the mutex.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-In LinuxThreads 0.8 and up, <code>pthread_unlock</code> restarts only
|
|
|
-one waiting thread, and pre-assign the mutex to that thread. Hence,
|
|
|
-if the thread that unlocked the mutex tries to lock it again
|
|
|
-immediately, it will block until other waiting threads have had a
|
|
|
-chance to lock and unlock the mutex. This results in much fairer
|
|
|
-scheduling.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Notice however that even the old "unfair" behavior is perfectly
|
|
|
-acceptable with respect to the POSIX standard: for the default
|
|
|
-scheduling policy, POSIX makes no guarantees of fairness, such as "the
|
|
|
-thread waiting for the mutex for the longest time always acquires it
|
|
|
-first". Properly written multithreaded code avoids that kind of heavy
|
|
|
-contention on mutexes, and does not run into fairness problems. If
|
|
|
-you need scheduling guarantees, you should consider using the
|
|
|
-real-time scheduling policies <code>SCHED_RR</code> and
|
|
|
-<code>SCHED_FIFO</code>, which have precisely defined scheduling
|
|
|
-behaviors. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.7">D.7: I have a simple test program with two threads
|
|
|
-that do nothing but <CODE>printf()</CODE> in tight loops, and from the
|
|
|
-printout it seems that only one thread is running, the other doesn't
|
|
|
-print anything!</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Again, this behavior is characteristic of old releases of LinuxThreads
|
|
|
-(0.7 and before); more recent versions (0.8 and up) should not exhibit
|
|
|
-this behavior.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The reason for this behavior is explained in
|
|
|
-question <A HREF="#D.6">D.6</A> above: <CODE>printf()</CODE> performs
|
|
|
-locking on <CODE>stdout</CODE>, and thus your two threads contend very
|
|
|
-heavily for the mutex associated with <CODE>stdout</CODE>. But if you
|
|
|
-do some real work between two calls to <CODE>printf()</CODE>, you'll
|
|
|
-see that scheduling becomes much smoother.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.8">D.8: I've looked at <code><pthread.h></code>
|
|
|
-and there seems to be a gross error in the <code>pthread_cleanup_push</code>
|
|
|
-macro: it opens a block with <code>{</code> but does not close it!
|
|
|
-Surely you forgot a <code>}</code> at the end of the macro, right?
|
|
|
-</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Nope. That's the way it should be. The closing brace is provided by
|
|
|
-the <code>pthread_cleanup_pop</code> macro. The POSIX standard
|
|
|
-requires <code>pthread_cleanup_push</code> and
|
|
|
-<code>pthread_cleanup_pop</code> to be used in matching pairs, at the
|
|
|
-same level of brace nesting. This allows
|
|
|
-<code>pthread_cleanup_push</code> to open a block in order to
|
|
|
-stack-allocate some data structure, and
|
|
|
-<code>pthread_cleanup_pop</code> to close that block. It's ugly, but
|
|
|
-it's the standard way of implementing cleanup handlers.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.9">D.9: I tried to use real-time threads and my program
|
|
|
-loops like crazy and freezes the whole machine!</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Versions of LinuxThreads prior to 0.8 are susceptible to ``livelocks''
|
|
|
-(one thread loops, consuming 100% of the CPU time) in conjunction with
|
|
|
-real-time scheduling. Since real-time threads and processes have
|
|
|
-higher priority than normal Linux processes, all other processes on
|
|
|
-the machine, including the shell, the X server, etc, cannot run and
|
|
|
-the machine appears frozen.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The problem is fixed in LinuxThreads 0.8.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="D.10">D.10: My application needs to create thousands of
|
|
|
-threads, or maybe even more. Can I do this with
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-No. You're going to run into several hard limits:
|
|
|
-<UL>
|
|
|
-<LI>Each thread, from the kernel's standpoint, is one process. Stock
|
|
|
-Linux kernels are limited to at most 512 processes for the super-user,
|
|
|
-and half this number for regular users. This can be changed by
|
|
|
-changing <code>NR_TASKS</code> in <code>include/linux/tasks.h</code>
|
|
|
-and recompiling the kernel. On the x86 processors at least,
|
|
|
-architectural constraints seem to limit <code>NR_TASKS</code> to 4090
|
|
|
-at most.
|
|
|
-<LI>LinuxThreads contains a table of all active threads. This table
|
|
|
-has room for 1024 threads at most. To increase this limit, you must
|
|
|
-change <code>PTHREAD_THREADS_MAX</code> in the LinuxThreads sources
|
|
|
-and recompile.
|
|
|
-<LI>By default, each thread reserves 2M of virtual memory space for
|
|
|
-its stack. This space is just reserved; actual memory is allocated
|
|
|
-for the stack on demand. But still, on a 32-bit processor, the total
|
|
|
-virtual memory space available for the stacks is on the order of 1G,
|
|
|
-meaning that more than 500 threads will have a hard time fitting in.
|
|
|
-You can overcome this limitation by moving to a 64-bit platform, or by
|
|
|
-allocating smaller stacks yourself using the <code>setstackaddr</code>
|
|
|
-attribute.
|
|
|
-<LI>Finally, the Linux kernel contains many algorithms that run in
|
|
|
-time proportional to the number of process table entries. Increasing
|
|
|
-this number drastically will slow down the kernel operations
|
|
|
-noticeably.
|
|
|
-</UL>
|
|
|
-(Other POSIX threads libraries have similar limitations, by the way.)
|
|
|
-For all those reasons, you'd better restructure your application so
|
|
|
-that it doesn't need more than, say, 100 threads. For instance,
|
|
|
-in the case of a multithreaded server, instead of creating a new
|
|
|
-thread for each connection, maintain a fixed-size pool of worker
|
|
|
-threads that pick incoming connection requests from a queue.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="E">E. Missing functions, wrong types, etc</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="E.1">E.1: Where is <CODE>pthread_yield()</CODE> ? How
|
|
|
-comes LinuxThreads does not implement it?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Because it's not part of the (final) POSIX 1003.1c standard.
|
|
|
-Several drafts of the standard contained <CODE>pthread_yield()</CODE>,
|
|
|
-but then the POSIX guys discovered it was redundant with
|
|
|
-<CODE>sched_yield()</CODE> and dropped it. So, just use
|
|
|
-<CODE>sched_yield()</CODE> instead.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="E.2">E.2: I've found some type errors in
|
|
|
-<code><pthread.h></code>.
|
|
|
-For instance, the second argument to <CODE>pthread_create()</CODE>
|
|
|
-should be a <CODE>pthread_attr_t</CODE>, not a
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_attr_t *</CODE>. Also, didn't you forget to declare
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_attr_default</CODE>?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-No, I didn't. What you're describing is draft 4 of the POSIX
|
|
|
-standard, which is used in OSF DCE threads. LinuxThreads conforms to the
|
|
|
-final standard. Even though the functions have the same names as in
|
|
|
-draft 4 and DCE, their calling conventions are slightly different. In
|
|
|
-particular, attributes are passed by reference, not by value, and
|
|
|
-default attributes are denoted by the NULL pointer. Since draft 4/DCE
|
|
|
-will eventually disappear, you'd better port your program to use the
|
|
|
-standard interface.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="E.3">E.3: I'm porting an application from Solaris and I
|
|
|
-have to rename all thread functions from <code>thr_blah</code> to
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_blah</CODE>. This is very annoying. Why did you change
|
|
|
-all the function names?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-POSIX did it. The <code>thr_*</code> functions correspond to Solaris
|
|
|
-threads, an older thread interface that you'll find only under
|
|
|
-Solaris. The <CODE>pthread_*</CODE> functions correspond to POSIX
|
|
|
-threads, an international standard available for many, many platforms.
|
|
|
-Even Solaris 2.5 and later support the POSIX threads interface. So,
|
|
|
-do yourself a favor and rewrite your code to use POSIX threads: this
|
|
|
-way, it will run unchanged under Linux, Solaris, and quite a lot of
|
|
|
-other platforms.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="E.4">E.4: How can I suspend and resume a thread from
|
|
|
-another thread? Solaris has the <CODE>thr_suspend()</CODE> and
|
|
|
-<CODE>thr_resume()</CODE> functions to do that; why don't you?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The POSIX standard provides <B>no</B> mechanism by which a thread A can
|
|
|
-suspend the execution of another thread B, without cooperation from B.
|
|
|
-The only way to implement a suspend/restart mechanism is to have B
|
|
|
-check periodically some global variable for a suspend request
|
|
|
-and then suspend itself on a condition variable, which another thread
|
|
|
-can signal later to restart B.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Notice that <CODE>thr_suspend()</CODE> is inherently dangerous and
|
|
|
-prone to race conditions. For one thing, there is no control on where
|
|
|
-the target thread stops: it can very well be stopped in the middle of
|
|
|
-a critical section, while holding mutexes. Also, there is no
|
|
|
-guarantee on when the target thread will actually stop. For these
|
|
|
-reasons, you'd be much better off using mutexes and conditions
|
|
|
-instead. The only situations that really require the ability to
|
|
|
-suspend a thread are debuggers and some kind of garbage collectors.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If you really must suspend a thread in LinuxThreads, you can send it a
|
|
|
-<CODE>SIGSTOP</CODE> signal with <CODE>pthread_kill</CODE>. Send
|
|
|
-<CODE>SIGCONT</CODE> for restarting it.
|
|
|
-Beware, this is specific to LinuxThreads and entirely non-portable.
|
|
|
-Indeed, a truly conforming POSIX threads implementation will stop all
|
|
|
-threads when one thread receives the <CODE>SIGSTOP</CODE> signal!
|
|
|
-One day, LinuxThreads will implement that behavior, and the
|
|
|
-non-portable hack with <CODE>SIGSTOP</CODE> won't work anymore.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="E.5">E.5: Does LinuxThreads implement
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_attr_setstacksize()</CODE> and
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_attr_setstackaddr()</CODE>?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-These optional functions are provided in recent versions of
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads (0.8 and up). Earlier releases did not provide these
|
|
|
-optional components of the POSIX standard.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Even if <CODE>pthread_attr_setstacksize()</CODE> and
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_attr_setstackaddr()</CODE> are now provided, we still
|
|
|
-recommend that you do not use them unless you really have strong
|
|
|
-reasons for doing so. The default stack allocation strategy for
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads is nearly optimal: stacks start small (4k) and
|
|
|
-automatically grow on demand to a fairly large limit (2M).
|
|
|
-Moreover, there is no portable way to estimate the stack requirements
|
|
|
-of a thread, so setting the stack size yourself makes your program
|
|
|
-less reliable and non-portable.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="E.6">E.6: LinuxThreads does not support the
|
|
|
-<CODE>PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS</CODE> value of the "contentionscope"
|
|
|
-attribute. Why? </A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-With a "one-to-one" model, as in LinuxThreads (one kernel execution
|
|
|
-context per thread), there is only one scheduler for all processes and
|
|
|
-all threads on the system. So, there is no way to obtain the behavior of
|
|
|
-<CODE>PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS</CODE>.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="E.7">E.7: LinuxThreads does not implement process-shared
|
|
|
-mutexes, conditions, and semaphores. Why?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-This is another optional component of the POSIX standard. Portable
|
|
|
-applications should test <CODE>_POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED</CODE>
|
|
|
-before using this facility.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-The goal of this extension is to allow different processes (with
|
|
|
-different address spaces) to synchronize through mutexes, conditions
|
|
|
-or semaphores allocated in shared memory (either SVR4 shared memory
|
|
|
-segments or <CODE>mmap()</CODE>ed files).
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-The reason why this does not work in LinuxThreads is that mutexes,
|
|
|
-conditions, and semaphores are not self-contained: their waiting
|
|
|
-queues contain pointers to linked lists of thread descriptors, and
|
|
|
-these pointers are meaningful only in one address space.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-Matt Messier and I spent a significant amount of time trying to design a
|
|
|
-suitable mechanism for sharing waiting queues between processes. We
|
|
|
-came up with several solutions that combined two of the following
|
|
|
-three desirable features, but none that combines all three:
|
|
|
-<UL>
|
|
|
-<LI>allow sharing between processes having different UIDs
|
|
|
-<LI>supports cancellation
|
|
|
-<LI>supports <CODE>pthread_cond_timedwait</CODE>
|
|
|
-</UL>
|
|
|
-We concluded that kernel support is required to share mutexes,
|
|
|
-conditions and semaphores between processes. That's one place where
|
|
|
-Linus Torvalds's intuition that "all we need in the kernel is
|
|
|
-<CODE>clone()</CODE>" fails.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-Until suitable kernel support is available, you'd better use
|
|
|
-traditional interprocess communications to synchronize different
|
|
|
-processes: System V semaphores and message queues, or pipes, or sockets.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="F">F. C++ issues</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="F.1">F.1: Are there C++ wrappers for LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Douglas Schmidt's ACE library contains, among a lot of other
|
|
|
-things, C++ wrappers for LinuxThreads and quite a number of other
|
|
|
-thread libraries. Check out
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html">http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html</A><P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="F.2">F.2: I'm trying to use LinuxThreads from a C++
|
|
|
-program, and the compiler complains about the third argument to
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_create()</CODE> !</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-You're probably trying to pass a class member function or some
|
|
|
-other C++ thing as third argument to <CODE>pthread_create()</CODE>.
|
|
|
-Recall that <CODE>pthread_create()</CODE> is a C function, and it must
|
|
|
-be passed a C function as third argument.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="F.3">F.3: I'm trying to use LinuxThreads in conjunction
|
|
|
-with libg++, and I'm having all sorts of trouble.</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
->From what I understand, thread support in libg++ is completely broken,
|
|
|
-especially with respect to locking of iostreams. H.J.Lu wrote:
|
|
|
-<BLOCKQUOTE>
|
|
|
-If you want to use thread, I can only suggest egcs and glibc. You
|
|
|
-can find egcs at
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://www.cygnus.com/egcs">http://www.cygnus.com/egcs</A>.
|
|
|
-egcs has libsdtc++, which is MT safe under glibc 2. If you really
|
|
|
-want to use the libg++, I have a libg++ add-on for egcs.
|
|
|
-</BLOCKQUOTE>
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="G">G. Debugging LinuxThreads programs</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="G.1">G.1: Can I debug LinuxThreads program using gdb?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Yes, but not with the stock gdb 4.17. You need a specially patched
|
|
|
-version of gdb 4.17 developed by Eric Paire and colleages at The Open
|
|
|
-Group, Grenoble. The patches against gdb 4.17 are available at
|
|
|
-<A HREF="http://www.gr.opengroup.org/java/jdk/linux/debug.htm"><code>http://www.gr.opengroup.org/java/jdk/linux/debug.htm</code></A>.
|
|
|
-Precompiled binaries of the patched gdb are available in RedHat's RPM
|
|
|
-format at <A
|
|
|
-HREF="http://odin.appliedtheory.com/"><code>http://odin.appliedtheory.com/</code></A>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Some Linux distributions provide an already-patched version of gdb;
|
|
|
-others don't. For instance, the gdb in RedHat 5.2 is thread-aware,
|
|
|
-but apparently not the one in RedHat 6.0. Just ask (politely) the
|
|
|
-makers of your Linux distributions to please make sure that they apply
|
|
|
-the correct patches to gdb.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="G.2">G.2: Does it work with post-mortem debugging?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Not very well. Generally, the core file does not correspond to the
|
|
|
-thread that crashed. The reason is that the kernel will not dump core
|
|
|
-for a process that shares its memory with other processes, such as the
|
|
|
-other threads of your program. So, the thread that crashes silently
|
|
|
-disappears without generating a core file. Then, all other threads of
|
|
|
-your program die on the same signal that killed the crashing thread.
|
|
|
-(This is required behavior according to the POSIX standard.) The last
|
|
|
-one that dies is no longer sharing its memory with anyone else, so the
|
|
|
-kernel generates a core file for that thread. Unfortunately, that's
|
|
|
-not the thread you are interested in.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="G.3">G.3: Any other ways to debug multithreaded programs, then?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Assertions and <CODE>printf()</CODE> are your best friends. Try to debug
|
|
|
-sequential parts in a single-threaded program first. Then, put
|
|
|
-<CODE>printf()</CODE> statements all over the place to get execution traces.
|
|
|
-Also, check invariants often with the <CODE>assert()</CODE> macro. In truth,
|
|
|
-there is no other effective way (save for a full formal proof of your
|
|
|
-program) to track down concurrency bugs. Debuggers are not really
|
|
|
-effective for subtle concurrency problems, because they disrupt
|
|
|
-program execution too much.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="H">H. Compiling multithreaded code; errno madness</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="H.1">H.1: You say all multithreaded code must be compiled
|
|
|
-with <CODE>_REENTRANT</CODE> defined. What difference does it make?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-It affects include files in three ways:
|
|
|
-<UL>
|
|
|
-<LI> The include files define prototypes for the reentrant variants of
|
|
|
-some of the standard library functions,
|
|
|
-e.g. <CODE>gethostbyname_r()</CODE> as a reentrant equivalent to
|
|
|
-<CODE>gethostbyname()</CODE>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<LI> If <CODE>_REENTRANT</CODE> is defined, some
|
|
|
-<code><stdio.h></code> functions are no longer defined as macros,
|
|
|
-e.g. <CODE>getc()</CODE> and <CODE>putc()</CODE>. In a multithreaded
|
|
|
-program, stdio functions require additional locking, which the macros
|
|
|
-don't perform, so we must call functions instead.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<LI> More importantly, <code><errno.h></code> redefines errno when
|
|
|
-<CODE>_REENTRANT</CODE> is
|
|
|
-defined, so that errno refers to the thread-specific errno location
|
|
|
-rather than the global errno variable. This is achieved by the
|
|
|
-following <code>#define</code> in <code><errno.h></code>:
|
|
|
-<PRE>
|
|
|
- #define errno (*(__errno_location()))
|
|
|
-</PRE>
|
|
|
-which causes each reference to errno to call the
|
|
|
-<CODE>__errno_location()</CODE> function for obtaining the location
|
|
|
-where error codes are stored. libc provides a default definition of
|
|
|
-<CODE>__errno_location()</CODE> that always returns
|
|
|
-<code>&errno</code> (the address of the global errno variable). Thus,
|
|
|
-for programs not linked with LinuxThreads, defining
|
|
|
-<CODE>_REENTRANT</CODE> makes no difference w.r.t. errno processing.
|
|
|
-But LinuxThreads redefines <CODE>__errno_location()</CODE> to return a
|
|
|
-location in the thread descriptor reserved for holding the current
|
|
|
-value of errno for the calling thread. Thus, each thread operates on
|
|
|
-a different errno location.
|
|
|
-</UL>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="H.2">H.2: Why is it so important that each thread has its
|
|
|
-own errno variable? </A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If all threads were to store error codes in the same, global errno
|
|
|
-variable, then the value of errno after a system call or library
|
|
|
-function returns would be unpredictable: between the time a system
|
|
|
-call stores its error code in the global errno and your code inspects
|
|
|
-errno to see which error occurred, another thread might have stored
|
|
|
-another error code in the same errno location. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="H.3">H.3: What happens if I link LinuxThreads with code
|
|
|
-not compiled with <CODE>-D_REENTRANT</CODE>?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Lots of trouble. If the code uses <CODE>getc()</CODE> or
|
|
|
-<CODE>putc()</CODE>, it will perform I/O without proper interlocking
|
|
|
-of the stdio buffers; this can cause lost output, duplicate output, or
|
|
|
-just crash other stdio functions. If the code consults errno, it will
|
|
|
-get back the wrong error code. The following code fragment is a
|
|
|
-typical example:
|
|
|
-<PRE>
|
|
|
- do {
|
|
|
- r = read(fd, buf, n);
|
|
|
- if (r == -1) {
|
|
|
- if (errno == EINTR) /* an error we can handle */
|
|
|
- continue;
|
|
|
- else { /* other errors are fatal */
|
|
|
- perror("read failed");
|
|
|
- exit(100);
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
- } while (...);
|
|
|
-</PRE>
|
|
|
-Assume this code is not compiled with <CODE>-D_REENTRANT</CODE>, and
|
|
|
-linked with LinuxThreads. At run-time, <CODE>read()</CODE> is
|
|
|
-interrupted. Since the C library was compiled with
|
|
|
-<CODE>-D_REENTRANT</CODE>, <CODE>read()</CODE> stores its error code
|
|
|
-in the location pointed to by <CODE>__errno_location()</CODE>, which
|
|
|
-is the thread-local errno variable. Then, the code above sees that
|
|
|
-<CODE>read()</CODE> returns -1 and looks up errno. Since
|
|
|
-<CODE>_REENTRANT</CODE> is not defined, the reference to errno
|
|
|
-accesses the global errno variable, which is most likely 0. Hence the
|
|
|
-code concludes that it cannot handle the error and stops.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="H.4">H.4: With LinuxThreads, I can no longer use the signals
|
|
|
-<code>SIGUSR1</code> and <code>SIGUSR2</code> in my programs! Why? </A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The short answer is: because the Linux kernel you're using does not
|
|
|
-support realtime signals. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads needs two signals for its internal operation.
|
|
|
-One is used to suspend and restart threads blocked on mutex, condition
|
|
|
-or semaphore operations. The other is used for thread
|
|
|
-cancellation.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-On ``old'' kernels (2.0 and early 2.1 kernels), there are only 32
|
|
|
-signals available and the kernel reserves all of them but two:
|
|
|
-<code>SIGUSR1</code> and <code>SIGUSR2</code>. So, LinuxThreads has
|
|
|
-no choice but use those two signals.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-On recent kernels (2.2 and up), more than 32 signals are provided in
|
|
|
-the form of realtime signals. When run on one of those kernels,
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads uses two reserved realtime signals for its internal
|
|
|
-operation, thus leaving <code>SIGUSR1</code> and <code>SIGUSR2</code>
|
|
|
-free for user code. (This works only with glibc, not with libc 5.) <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="H.5">H.5: Is the stack of one thread visible from the
|
|
|
-other threads? Can I pass a pointer into my stack to other threads?
|
|
|
-</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Yes, you can -- if you're very careful. The stacks are indeed visible
|
|
|
-from all threads in the system. Some non-POSIX thread libraries seem
|
|
|
-to map the stacks for all threads at the same virtual addresses and
|
|
|
-change the memory mapping when they switch from one thread to
|
|
|
-another. But this is not the case for LinuxThreads, as it would make
|
|
|
-context switching between threads more expensive, and at any rate
|
|
|
-might not conform to the POSIX standard.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-So, you can take the address of an "auto" variable and pass it to
|
|
|
-other threads via shared data structures. However, you need to make
|
|
|
-absolutely sure that the function doing this will not return as long
|
|
|
-as other threads need to access this address. It's the usual mistake
|
|
|
-of returning the address of an "auto" variable, only made much worse
|
|
|
-because of concurrency. It's much, much safer to systematically
|
|
|
-heap-allocate all shared data structures. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="I">I. X-Windows and other libraries</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="I.1">I.1: My program uses both Xlib and LinuxThreads.
|
|
|
-It stops very early with an "Xlib: unknown 0 error" message. What
|
|
|
-does this mean? </A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-That's a prime example of the errno problem described in question <A
|
|
|
-HREF="#H.2">H.2</A>. The binaries for Xlib you're using have not been
|
|
|
-compiled with <CODE>-D_REENTRANT</CODE>. It happens Xlib contains a
|
|
|
-piece of code very much like the one in question <A
|
|
|
-HREF="#H.2">H.2</A>. So, your Xlib fetches the error code from the
|
|
|
-wrong errno location and concludes that an error it cannot handle
|
|
|
-occurred.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="I.2">I.2: So, what can I do to build a multithreaded X
|
|
|
-Windows client? </A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The best solution is to use X libraries that have been compiled with
|
|
|
-multithreading options set. Linux distributions that come with glibc
|
|
|
-2 as the main C library generally provide thread-safe X libraries.
|
|
|
-At least, that seems to be the case for RedHat 5 and later.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-You can try to recompile yourself the X libraries with multithreading
|
|
|
-options set. They contain optional support for multithreading; it's
|
|
|
-just that the binaries provided by your Linux distribution were built
|
|
|
-without this support. See the file <code>README.Xfree3.3</code> in
|
|
|
-the LinuxThreads distribution for patches and info on how to compile
|
|
|
-thread-safe X libraries from the Xfree3.3 distribution. The Xfree3.3
|
|
|
-sources are readily available in most Linux distributions, e.g. as a
|
|
|
-source RPM for RedHat. Be warned, however, that X Windows is a huge
|
|
|
-system, and recompiling even just the libraries takes a lot of time
|
|
|
-and disk space.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Another, less involving solution is to call X functions only from the
|
|
|
-main thread of your program. Even if all threads have their own errno
|
|
|
-location, the main thread uses the global errno variable for its errno
|
|
|
-location. Thus, code not compiled with <code>-D_REENTRANT</code>
|
|
|
-still "sees" the right error values if it executes in the main thread
|
|
|
-only. <P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="I.2">This is a lot of work. Don't you have precompiled
|
|
|
-thread-safe X libraries that you could distribute?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-No, I don't. Sorry. But consider installing a Linux distribution
|
|
|
-that comes with thread-safe X libraries, such as RedHat 6.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="I.3">I.3: Can I use library FOO in a multithreaded
|
|
|
-program?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Most libraries cannot be used "as is" in a multithreaded program.
|
|
|
-For one thing, they are not necessarily thread-safe: calling
|
|
|
-simultaneously two functions of the library from two threads might not
|
|
|
-work, due to internal use of global variables and the like. Second,
|
|
|
-the libraries must have been compiled with <CODE>-D_REENTRANT</CODE> to avoid
|
|
|
-the errno problems explained in question <A HREF="#H.2">H.2</A>.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="I.4">I.4: What if I make sure that only one thread calls
|
|
|
-functions in these libraries?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-This avoids problems with the library not being thread-safe. But
|
|
|
-you're still vulnerable to errno problems. At the very least, a
|
|
|
-recompile of the library with <CODE>-D_REENTRANT</CODE> is needed.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="I.5">I.5: What if I make sure that only the main thread
|
|
|
-calls functions in these libraries?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-That might actually work. As explained in question <A HREF="#I.1">I.1</A>,
|
|
|
-the main thread uses the global errno variable, and can therefore
|
|
|
-execute code not compiled with <CODE>-D_REENTRANT</CODE>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="I.6">I.6: SVGAlib doesn't work with LinuxThreads. Why?
|
|
|
-</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Because both LinuxThreads and SVGAlib use the signals
|
|
|
-<code>SIGUSR1</code> and <code>SIGUSR2</code>. See question <A
|
|
|
-HREF="#H.4">H.4</A>.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="J">J. Signals and threads</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="J.1">J.1: When it comes to signals, what is shared
|
|
|
-between threads and what isn't?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Signal handlers are shared between all threads: when a thread calls
|
|
|
-<CODE>sigaction()</CODE>, it sets how the signal is handled not only
|
|
|
-for itself, but for all other threads in the program as well.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-On the other hand, signal masks are per-thread: each thread chooses
|
|
|
-which signals it blocks independently of others. At thread creation
|
|
|
-time, the newly created thread inherits the signal mask of the thread
|
|
|
-calling <CODE>pthread_create()</CODE>. But afterwards, the new thread
|
|
|
-can modify its signal mask independently of its creator thread.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="J.2">J.2: When I send a <CODE>SIGKILL</CODE> to a
|
|
|
-particular thread using <CODE>pthread_kill</CODE>, all my threads are
|
|
|
-killed!</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-That's how it should be. The POSIX standard mandates that all threads
|
|
|
-should terminate when the process (i.e. the collection of all threads
|
|
|
-running the program) receives a signal whose effect is to
|
|
|
-terminate the process (such as <CODE>SIGKILL</CODE> or <CODE>SIGINT</CODE>
|
|
|
-when no handler is installed on that signal). This behavior makes a
|
|
|
-lot of sense: when you type "ctrl-C" at the keyboard, or when a thread
|
|
|
-crashes on a division by zero or a segmentation fault, you really want
|
|
|
-all threads to stop immediately, not just the one that caused the
|
|
|
-segmentation violation or that got the <CODE>SIGINT</CODE> signal.
|
|
|
-(This assumes default behavior for those signals; see question
|
|
|
-<A HREF="#J.3">J.3</A> if you install handlers for those signals.)<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If you're trying to terminate a thread without bringing the whole
|
|
|
-process down, use <code>pthread_cancel()</code>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="J.3">J.3: I've installed a handler on a signal. Which
|
|
|
-thread executes the handler when the signal is received?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If the signal is generated by a thread during its execution (e.g. a
|
|
|
-thread executes a division by zero and thus generates a
|
|
|
-<CODE>SIGFPE</CODE> signal), then the handler is executed by that
|
|
|
-thread. This also applies to signals generated by
|
|
|
-<CODE>raise()</CODE>.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If the signal is sent to a particular thread using
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_kill()</CODE>, then that thread executes the handler.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-If the signal is sent via <CODE>kill()</CODE> or the tty interface
|
|
|
-(e.g. by pressing ctrl-C), then the POSIX specs say that the handler
|
|
|
-is executed by any thread in the process that does not currently block
|
|
|
-the signal. In other terms, POSIX considers that the signal is sent
|
|
|
-to the process (the collection of all threads) as a whole, and any
|
|
|
-thread that is not blocking this signal can then handle it.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The latter case is where LinuxThreads departs from the POSIX specs.
|
|
|
-In LinuxThreads, there is no real notion of ``the process as a whole'':
|
|
|
-in the kernel, each thread is really a distinct process with a
|
|
|
-distinct PID, and signals sent to the PID of a thread can only be
|
|
|
-handled by that thread. As long as no thread is blocking the signal,
|
|
|
-the behavior conforms to the standard: one (unspecified) thread of the
|
|
|
-program handles the signal. But if the thread to which PID the signal
|
|
|
-is sent blocks the signal, and some other thread does not block the
|
|
|
-signal, then LinuxThreads will simply queue in
|
|
|
-that thread and execute the handler only when that thread unblocks
|
|
|
-the signal, instead of executing the handler immediately in the other
|
|
|
-thread that does not block the signal.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-This is to be viewed as a LinuxThreads bug, but I currently don't see
|
|
|
-any way to implement the POSIX behavior without kernel support.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="J.3">J.3: How shall I go about mixing signals and threads
|
|
|
-in my program? </A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The less you mix them, the better. Notice that all
|
|
|
-<CODE>pthread_*</CODE> functions are not async-signal safe, meaning
|
|
|
-that you should not call them from signal handlers. This
|
|
|
-recommendation is not to be taken lightly: your program can deadlock
|
|
|
-if you call a <CODE>pthread_*</CODE> function from a signal handler!
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The only sensible things you can do from a signal handler is set a
|
|
|
-global flag, or call <CODE>sem_post</CODE> on a semaphore, to record
|
|
|
-the delivery of the signal. The remainder of the program can then
|
|
|
-either poll the global flag, or use <CODE>sem_wait()</CODE> and
|
|
|
-<CODE>sem_trywait()</CODE> on the semaphore.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Another option is to do nothing in the signal handler, and dedicate
|
|
|
-one thread (preferably the initial thread) to wait synchronously for
|
|
|
-signals, using <CODE>sigwait()</CODE>, and send messages to the other
|
|
|
-threads accordingly.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="J.4">J.4: When one thread is blocked in
|
|
|
-<CODE>sigwait()</CODE>, other threads no longer receive the signals
|
|
|
-<CODE>sigwait()</CODE> is waiting for! What happens? </A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-It's an unfortunate consequence of how LinuxThreads implements
|
|
|
-<CODE>sigwait()</CODE>. Basically, it installs signal handlers on all
|
|
|
-signals waited for, in order to record which signal was received.
|
|
|
-Since signal handlers are shared with the other threads, this
|
|
|
-temporarily deactivates any signal handlers you might have previously
|
|
|
-installed on these signals.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Though surprising, this behavior actually seems to conform to the
|
|
|
-POSIX standard. According to POSIX, <CODE>sigwait()</CODE> is
|
|
|
-guaranteed to work as expected only if all other threads in the
|
|
|
-program block the signals waited for (otherwise, the signals could be
|
|
|
-delivered to other threads than the one doing <CODE>sigwait()</CODE>,
|
|
|
-which would make <CODE>sigwait()</CODE> useless). In this particular
|
|
|
-case, the problem described in this question does not appear.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-One day, <CODE>sigwait()</CODE> will be implemented in the kernel,
|
|
|
-along with others POSIX 1003.1b extensions, and <CODE>sigwait()</CODE>
|
|
|
-will have a more natural behavior (as well as better performances).<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H2><A NAME="K">K. Internals of LinuxThreads</A></H2>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="K.1">K.1: What is the implementation model for
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-LinuxThreads follows the so-called "one-to-one" model: each thread is
|
|
|
-actually a separate process in the kernel. The kernel scheduler takes
|
|
|
-care of scheduling the threads, just like it schedules regular
|
|
|
-processes. The threads are created with the Linux
|
|
|
-<code>clone()</code> system call, which is a generalization of
|
|
|
-<code>fork()</code> allowing the new process to share the memory
|
|
|
-space, file descriptors, and signal handlers of the parent.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Advantages of the "one-to-one" model include:
|
|
|
-<UL>
|
|
|
-<LI> minimal overhead on CPU-intensive multiprocessing (with
|
|
|
-about one thread per processor);
|
|
|
-<LI> minimal overhead on I/O operations;
|
|
|
-<LI> a simple and robust implementation (the kernel scheduler does
|
|
|
-most of the hard work for us).
|
|
|
-</UL>
|
|
|
-The main disadvantage is more expensive context switches on mutex and
|
|
|
-condition operations, which must go through the kernel. This is
|
|
|
-mitigated by the fact that context switches in the Linux kernel are
|
|
|
-pretty efficient.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<H4><A NAME="K.2">K.2: Have you considered other implementation
|
|
|
-models?</A></H4>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-There are basically two other models. The "many-to-one" model
|
|
|
-relies on a user-level scheduler that context-switches between the
|
|
|
-threads entirely in user code; viewed from the kernel, there is only
|
|
|
-one process running. This model is completely out of the question for
|
|
|
-me, since it does not take advantage of multiprocessors, and require
|
|
|
-unholy magic to handle blocking I/O operations properly. There are
|
|
|
-several user-level thread libraries available for Linux, but I found
|
|
|
-all of them deficient in functionality, performance, and/or robustness.
|
|
|
-<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The "many-to-many" model combines both kernel-level and user-level
|
|
|
-scheduling: several kernel-level threads run concurrently, each
|
|
|
-executing a user-level scheduler that selects between user threads.
|
|
|
-Most commercial Unix systems (Solaris, Digital Unix, IRIX) implement
|
|
|
-POSIX threads this way. This model combines the advantages of both
|
|
|
-the "many-to-one" and the "one-to-one" model, and is attractive
|
|
|
-because it avoids the worst-case behaviors of both models --
|
|
|
-especially on kernels where context switches are expensive, such as
|
|
|
-Digital Unix. Unfortunately, it is pretty complex to implement, and
|
|
|
-requires kernel support which Linux does not provide. Linus Torvalds
|
|
|
-and other Linux kernel developers have always been pushing the
|
|
|
-"one-to-one" model in the name of overall simplicity, and are doing a
|
|
|
-pretty good job of making kernel-level context switches between
|
|
|
-threads efficient. LinuxThreads is just following the general
|
|
|
-direction they set.<P>
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-<HR>
|
|
|
-<ADDRESS>Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr</ADDRESS>
|
|
|
-</BODY>
|
|
|
-</HTML>
|
Mike Frysinger