A mutex for inter-process ;-)
rrs at lakerest.net
Mon Mar 30 22:04:43 PDT 2009
On Mar 30, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Randall Stewart wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Randall Stewart wrote:
>>>> Hi all:
>>>> I have recently written a small set of routines that allow
>>>> two process to have a "mutex" between them.. actually it allows
>>>> all of the threads in any set of processes to have mutexes
>>>> between themselves ;-)
>>>> Anyway it seems to be working fairly well.. I still have to write
>>>> a man page
>>>> for it (documentation always last).. and eventually I would like
>>>> to port in
>>>> some of the WITNESS type features since the mutex's have names..
>>>> I probably should also think about scaling it up a bit.. right
>>>> now its really
>>>> more for a small scale (100 or less mutexes)...
>>>> Who should I talk to about getting this in... having it reviewed
>>>> etc. I think
>>>> it belongs in libthr since it really needs the tid of the
>>>> pthreads from the
>>>> pthread_t type... and for now I have a horrible hack in to get
>>>> it ;-)
>>> The real way to do this is to support PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED
>>> mutexes within our normal mutex, and to change our current
>>> mutex (and cv) types to be structs instead of pointers.
>>> The current API, other than the type change, shouldn't
>>> change at all.
>> So how do you propose to name the mutex's so that two disparate
>> process can locate the same mutex?
> They are placed in shared memory, according to POSIX.
>> I don't see how a pthread_mutex can suffice... we need more than
>> just the current mutex...
>> What am I missing?
> As far as I know, David Xu implemented the kernel hooks
> for umtx (the underlying mutex in pthread mutex) to be
> shared. As soon as you can place the entire userland
> pthread_mutex_t struct in shared memory, it should all
> just work (with probably some trivial changes in libthr).
> The harder part is versioning all the symbols that
> currently think pthread_mutex_t, pthread_cond_t, etc,
> are pointers, and defining the structs with enough
> foresight so that it is unlikely we have to modify
> them in the future (causing a future ABI breakage),
> and also aligning them nicely for the various archs.
> You should really look at how POSIX defines process
> shared mutex, cvs, etc. See:
> You can use this as a starting point:
Ok, I have poked around at these... all the mutex attributes defined
do is set the attributes to shared. There does not seem to be any
In fact following the set attributes stuff it gives examples of a
variable and defines "new local methods" to get a shared semaphore.
the actual naming semantics in the new local methods. All that they
do on the mutex side is set the attributes to "shared" and basically do
the very same thing that I was playing with... i.e. mmap() the file
after initializing it...
Now granted I did not use the pthread_mutex_*() calls themselves but
used the umtx() calls directly on the shared memory. Not sure if there
much difference there.. but in any event there is no declaration here
in posix on calls for setting "names" so one could then expand the stuff
and add witness etc. It looks to me like its more or less a "left open"
for future work..
I just love standards bodies ;-D
More information about the freebsd-threads