This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Async-signal-safe access to __thread variables from dlopen()ed libraries?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Hunter <ahh at google dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:26:02 -0400
- Subject: Re: Async-signal-safe access to __thread variables from dlopen()ed libraries?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20120612193224 dot 8E43619060E at elbrus2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <4FD8D974 dot 7090903 at twiddle dot net> <20120613182826 dot 0CFAB2C0A3 at topped-with-meat dot com> <CALoOobMtXCw+oe7ZL0=my8YH5st8b1==CasS8i07z6G9DfaX-w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20120613210444 dot 659732C095 at topped-with-meat dot com> <mcr4nqebzok dot fsf at dhcp-172-18-216-180 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20120614002931 dot ABB762C08B at topped-with-meat dot com> <mcr1uliaeep dot fsf at dhcp-172-18-216-180 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <CALoOobPJ7G7ciRfc2JwzHjsDTg4-_h-SXqeU1zR4WEzoyQhyNg at mail dot gmail dot com> <523BD470 dot 6090203 at redhat dot com> <CAKOQZ8y85QBkd97cEEmP-4OgE2KizCqknrVR_n44pwBGMs5uAw at mail dot gmail dot com> <523C88D1 dot 6090304 at redhat dot com> <CAKOQZ8ze1zKdQRsMsmBCqnJr361Gvv8mYjLjGgzYwWJEKUY+7w at mail dot gmail dot com> <523CB72A dot 7040507 at redhat dot com> <CAKOQZ8yq6gnWig3Wg4YF0qOYTJbevEExG0Sm9K4ofsSO+PWq1A at mail dot gmail dot com> <5241F2CF dot 9020004 at redhat dot com> <CADroS=712-dg+bwR-HY9mYNFPSU=oZekwUJaA8dRqs1-o=-qcQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 09/24/2013 04:21 PM, Andrew Hunter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Thanks. I still think we need to look at interrupted initialization
>> as another possible problem.
>
> My patch addresses that (the simplest way possible--masking out signals.)
Thanks I saw that. I need to update the design document to cover exactly
what the patch is doing in that case.
It's certainly a future enhancement to use an atomic operation with a
retry, but I don't know if the complexity is worth it. I also don't know
if the blocked signals show up at all as increased latency in responding
to other signals. Do you have any figures on that?
Cheers,
Carlos.