Skip to content

Commit bd019c4

Browse files
committed
Thread order_lock through rwlock condvars for reacquiring access_lock. Fixes #7065.
1 parent 0ca2056 commit bd019c4

File tree

1 file changed

+72
-22
lines changed

1 file changed

+72
-22
lines changed

src/libextra/sync.rs

Lines changed: 72 additions & 22 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -189,8 +189,27 @@ fn SemAndSignalRelease<'r>(sem: &'r Sem<~[Waitqueue]>)
189189
}
190190
}
191191

192+
// FIXME(#3598): Want to use an Option down below, but we need a custom enum
193+
// that's not polymorphic to get around the fact that lifetimes are invariant
194+
// inside of type parameters.
195+
enum ReacquireOrderLock<'self> {
196+
Nothing, // c.c
197+
Just(&'self Semaphore),
198+
}
199+
192200
/// A mechanism for atomic-unlock-and-deschedule blocking and signalling.
193-
pub struct Condvar<'self> { priv sem: &'self Sem<~[Waitqueue]> }
201+
pub struct Condvar<'self> {
202+
// The 'Sem' object associated with this condvar. This is the one that's
203+
// atomically-unlocked-and-descheduled upon and reacquired during wakeup.
204+
priv sem: &'self Sem<~[Waitqueue]>,
205+
// This is (can be) an extra semaphore which is held around the reacquire
206+
// operation on the first one. This is only used in cvars associated with
207+
// rwlocks, and is needed to ensure that, when a downgrader is trying to
208+
// hand off the access lock (which would be the first field, here), a 2nd
209+
// writer waking up from a cvar wait can't race with a reader to steal it,
210+
// See the comment in write_cond for more detail.
211+
priv order: ReacquireOrderLock<'self>,
212+
}
194213

195214
#[unsafe_destructor]
196215
impl<'self> Drop for Condvar<'self> { fn finalize(&self) {} }
@@ -247,7 +266,8 @@ impl<'self> Condvar<'self> {
247266
// unkillably reacquire the lock needs to happen atomically
248267
// wrt enqueuing.
249268
if out_of_bounds.is_none() {
250-
reacquire = Some(SemAndSignalReacquire(self.sem));
269+
reacquire = Some(CondvarReacquire { sem: self.sem,
270+
order: self.order });
251271
}
252272
}
253273
}
@@ -261,28 +281,29 @@ impl<'self> Condvar<'self> {
261281
// This is needed for a failing condition variable to reacquire the
262282
// mutex during unwinding. As long as the wrapper (mutex, etc) is
263283
// bounded in when it gets released, this shouldn't hang forever.
264-
struct SemAndSignalReacquire<'self> {
284+
struct CondvarReacquire<'self> {
265285
sem: &'self Sem<~[Waitqueue]>,
286+
order: ReacquireOrderLock<'self>,
266287
}
267288

268289
#[unsafe_destructor]
269-
impl<'self> Drop for SemAndSignalReacquire<'self> {
290+
impl<'self> Drop for CondvarReacquire<'self> {
270291
fn finalize(&self) {
271292
unsafe {
272293
// Needs to succeed, instead of itself dying.
273294
do task::unkillable {
274-
self.sem.acquire();
295+
match self.order {
296+
Just(lock) => do lock.access {
297+
self.sem.acquire();
298+
},
299+
Nothing => {
300+
self.sem.acquire();
301+
},
302+
}
275303
}
276304
}
277305
}
278306
}
279-
280-
fn SemAndSignalReacquire<'r>(sem: &'r Sem<~[Waitqueue]>)
281-
-> SemAndSignalReacquire<'r> {
282-
SemAndSignalReacquire {
283-
sem: sem
284-
}
285-
}
286307
}
287308

288309
/// Wake up a blocked task. Returns false if there was no blocked task.
@@ -350,9 +371,12 @@ fn check_cvar_bounds<U>(out_of_bounds: Option<uint>, id: uint, act: &str,
350371

351372
#[doc(hidden)]
352373
impl Sem<~[Waitqueue]> {
353-
// The only other place that condvars get built is rwlock_write_mode.
374+
// The only other places that condvars get built are rwlock.write_cond()
375+
// and rwlock_write_mode.
354376
pub fn access_cond<U>(&self, blk: &fn(c: &Condvar) -> U) -> U {
355-
do self.access { blk(&Condvar { sem: self }) }
377+
do self.access {
378+
blk(&Condvar { sem: self, order: Nothing })
379+
}
356380
}
357381
}
358382

@@ -534,17 +558,39 @@ impl RWlock {
534558
* was signalled might reacquire the lock before other waiting writers.)
535559
*/
536560
pub fn write_cond<U>(&self, blk: &fn(c: &Condvar) -> U) -> U {
537-
// NB: You might think I should thread the order_lock into the cond
538-
// wait call, so that it gets waited on before access_lock gets
539-
// reacquired upon being woken up. However, (a) this would be not
540-
// pleasant to implement (and would mandate a new 'rw_cond' type) and
541-
// (b) I think violating no-starvation in that case is appropriate.
561+
// It's important to thread our order lock into the condvar, so that
562+
// when a cond.wait() wakes up, it uses it while reacquiring the
563+
// access lock. If we permitted a waking-up writer to "cut in line",
564+
// there could arise a subtle race when a downgrader attempts to hand
565+
// off the reader cloud lock to a waiting reader. This race is tested
566+
// in arc.rs (test_rw_write_cond_downgrade_read_race) and looks like:
567+
// T1 (writer) T2 (downgrader) T3 (reader)
568+
// [in cond.wait()]
569+
// [locks for writing]
570+
// [holds access_lock]
571+
// [is signalled, perhaps by
572+
// downgrader or a 4th thread]
573+
// tries to lock access(!)
574+
// lock order_lock
575+
// xadd read_count[0->1]
576+
// tries to lock access
577+
// [downgrade]
578+
// xadd read_count[1->2]
579+
// unlock access
580+
// Since T1 contended on the access lock before T3 did, it will steal
581+
// the lock handoff. Adding order_lock in the condvar reacquire path
582+
// solves this because T1 will hold order_lock while waiting on access,
583+
// which will cause T3 to have to wait until T1 finishes its write,
584+
// which can't happen until T2 finishes the downgrade-read entirely.
542585
unsafe {
543586
do task::unkillable {
544587
(&self.order_lock).acquire();
545588
do (&self.access_lock).access_cond |cond| {
546589
(&self.order_lock).release();
547-
do task::rekillable { blk(cond) }
590+
do task::rekillable {
591+
let opt_lock = Just(&self.order_lock);
592+
blk(&Condvar { order: opt_lock, ..*cond })
593+
}
548594
}
549595
}
550596
}
@@ -605,7 +651,8 @@ impl RWlock {
605651
// Guaranteed not to let another writer in, because
606652
// another reader was holding the order_lock. Hence they
607653
// must be the one to get the access_lock (because all
608-
// access_locks are acquired with order_lock held).
654+
// access_locks are acquired with order_lock held). See
655+
// the comment in write_cond for more justification.
609656
(&self.access_lock).release();
610657
}
611658
}
@@ -709,7 +756,10 @@ impl<'self> RWlockWriteMode<'self> {
709756
pub fn write<U>(&self, blk: &fn() -> U) -> U { blk() }
710757
/// Access the pre-downgrade rwlock in write mode with a condvar.
711758
pub fn write_cond<U>(&self, blk: &fn(c: &Condvar) -> U) -> U {
712-
blk(&Condvar { sem: &self.lock.access_lock })
759+
// Need to make the condvar use the order lock when reacquiring the
760+
// access lock. See comment in RWlock::write_cond for why.
761+
blk(&Condvar { sem: &self.lock.access_lock,
762+
order: Just(&self.lock.order_lock), })
713763
}
714764
}
715765

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)