kern/131597: [kernel] c++ exceptions very slow on FreeBSD 7.1/amd64

[Kostik Belousov]

The following reply was made to PR kern/131597; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com>
To: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org>
Cc: bug-followup at freebsd.org, guillaume at morinfr.org, kan at freebsd.org,
        davidxu at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/131597: [kernel] c++ exceptions very slow on FreeBSD 7.1/amd64
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:41:11 +0300

 --A47bNRIYjYQgpFVi
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 Content-Disposition: inline
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:21:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
 > On Friday 23 April 2010 9:47:40 am Kostik Belousov wrote:
 > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:43:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
 > > > On Friday 23 April 2010 8:25:01 am Kostik Belousov wrote:
 > > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 04:09:34PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
 > > > > > I tracked the sigprocmask() system calls down to the operations to
 > > > > > acquire a write lock in the runtime linker. The lock was added to=
  fix
 > > > > > an earlier bug with throwing exceptions in multithreaded C++ apps=
 . The
 > > > > > relevant commit that added the lock is this:
 > > > > >
 > > > > >    http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D=
 178807
 > > > > >
 > > > > > Are exceptions permitted during a signal handler? If not, then in
 > > > > > theory we would not need to invoke sigprocmask() for this particu=
 lar
 > > > > > lock perhaps? I'm not sure how easy that would be to achieve give=
 n the
 > > > > > hooks to allow the thread library to overload the locking routine=
 s.
 > > > > > Also, this doesn't explain the lack of sigprocmask() calls under =
 i386.
 > > > > > FreeBSD/i386 should be using the same locking code and thus invok=
 ing
 > > > > > sigprocmask() for each exception as well.
 > > > >=20
 > > > > Throwing an exception during asyncronous signal execution rises und=
 efined
 > > > > behaviour, AFAIK. sigprocmask() is there to support libc_r, and can=
 not
 > > > > be removed as far as we need to provide FreeBSD 4.x compatibility.
 > > >=20
 > > > Hmmm.  Why does libthr use sigprocmask() for its rtld locks then?  Is=
  that=20
 > > > just a copy-paste from libc_r that can be removed now?
 > >=20
 > > Hmmm^2. It seems it is there to prevent recursive entry into rtld from
 > > signal handler, that may reference yet unresolved symbol, e.g. libc
 > > syscall wrapper, from PLT. So my patch is wrong.
 >=20
 > Presumably we could use a different type of lock that doesn't use
 > sigprocmask() to serialize calls do dl_iterate_phdr()? I'm not sure if
 > libthr would really need to overwrite the behavior of that lock or if
 > a simple atomic_cmpset()-based mutex would always be fine.
 During my porting of libunwind, I was told by libunwind maintainer
 that they have to call dl_iterate_phdr() from signal context to
 unwind, if libunwind is called from signal context.
 
 Apparently, glibc' dl_iterate_phdr() is not signal-safe, while our is.
 >
 > OTOH, I'm not sure why libthr needs to use non-standard lock hooks at
 > this point as they don't seem to be markedly different from the ones
 > rtld uses.
 
 libthr locks provide exclusion both for other kernel-executed threads
 and signal handlers, while the rtld-default locks only protect against
 signal handlers and thus libc_r-style threads.
 
 --A47bNRIYjYQgpFVi
 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 Content-Disposition: inline
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD)
 
 iEYEARECAAYFAkvRsYYACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jm5QCg8l0OCcuqNiutS2fpF84GQ7rW
 1TcAoNwW+edk57r3KM/RaOBFybdHivHi
 =JtDQ
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 --A47bNRIYjYQgpFVi--