pg.ddx.io pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux
6+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux
@ 2003-06-26 19:07 Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
parent: Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Meskes @ 2003-06-26 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>; +Cc: Lee Kindness <lkindness@csl.co.uk>; pgsql-interfaces; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:45:46AM +1000, Philip Yarra wrote:
> ECPGget_connection, both of which share a mutex. Would it be okay if we did
> the following:
> ...
As you know I have never tried using threads, so feel free to go ahead
and change this. Either commit to cvs ot send me a patch.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux
@ 2003-06-27 00:45 Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Philip Yarra @ 2003-06-27 00:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Kindness <lkindness@csl.co.uk>; +Cc: pgsql-interfaces; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19 am, Philip Yarra wrote:
> there appears to still be a problem
> occurring at "EXEC SQL DISCONNECT con_name". I'll look into it tonight if I
> can.
I did some more poking around last night, and believe I have found the issue:
RedHat Linux 7.3 (the only distro I have access to currently) ships with a
fairly challenged pthreads inplementation. The default mutex type (which you
get from PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER) is, according the the man page,
PTHREAD_MUTEX_FAST_NP which is not a recursive mutex. If a thread owns a
mutex and attempts to lock the mutex again, it will hang.
By replacing PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER with PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP for the
two mutexes that are used recursively (debug_mutex and connections_mutex) I
got my sample app to work flawlessly on Linux RedHat 7.3
Sadly, the _NP suffix is used to indicate non-portable, so of course my
FreeBSD box steadfastly refused to compile it. Darn.
The correct way to do this appears to be:
pthread_mutexattr_t *mattr;
pthread_mutexattr_settype(mattr, PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE);
(will verify this against FreeBSD when I get home, and Tru64 man page
indicates support for this too, so I'll test that later). It won't work on
RedHat Linux 7.3... I guess something like:
#ifdef DODGY_PTHREADS
#define PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE = PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP
#endif
might do it... if we could detect the problem during configure. How is this
sort of detection handled in other cases (such as long long, etc)?
The other solution I can think of is to eradicate the two recursive locks I
found.
One is simple: ECPGlog calls ECPGdebug, which share debug_mutex - it ought to
be okay to use different mutexes for each of these functions (there's a risk
someone might call ECPGdebug while someone else is running through ECPGlog,
but I think it is less likely, since it is a debug mechanism.)
The second recursive lock I found is ECPGdisconnect calling
ECPGget_connection, both of which share a mutex. Would it be okay if we did
the following:
ECPGdisconnect() still locks connections_mutex, but calls
ECPGget_connection_nr() instead of ECPGget_connection()
ECPGget_connection() becomes a locking wrapper, which locks connections_mutex
then calls ECPGget_connection_nr()
ECPGget_connection_nr() is a non-locking function which implements what
ECPGget_connection() currently does.
I'm not sure if this sort of thing is okay (and there may be other recursive
locking scenarios that I haven't exercised yet).
What approach should I take? I'm leaning towards eradicating recursive locks,
unless someone has a good reason not to.
> All this does kinda raise the interesting question of why it worked at all
> on FreeBSD... probably different scheduling and blind luck, I suppose.
FreeBSD 4.8 must have PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE as default mutex type. I'm a bit
concerned about FreeBSD 4.2 though - I noticed (before I blew it away in
favour of 4.8) that its pthreads implementation came from a package called
linuxthreads.tgz - it might have inherited the same problematic behaviour.
Could someone with access to or knowledge of FreeBSD 4.2 check what the
default mutex type is there?
Regards, Philip.
I can just see the ad for 7.3's pthreads impementation
"Fast mutexes: zero to deadlock in 6.9 milliseconds!"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux
@ 2003-06-27 01:58 AgentM <agentm@cmu.edu>
parent: Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: AgentM @ 2003-06-27 01:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists.
pthread_mutexattr_get/settype(...) functions are defined by X/Open XSH5
(Unix98). I would suggest writing a wrapper for OSs that don't
implement recursive locks (it's easy enough to make your own
implementation- just check pthread_self() before deciding whether to
lock the mutex- potentially again). Either that or the recursive locks
can be eliminated.
Just for the record, OS X, Solaris 5.8, FreeBSD 4.8, and LinuxThreads
support the UNIX98 version, so perhaps this isn't so important after
all.
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 08:45 PM, Philip Yarra wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19 am, Philip Yarra wrote:
>
>> there appears to still be a problem
>> occurring at "EXEC SQL DISCONNECT con_name". I'll look into it
>> tonight if I
>> can.
>
> I did some more poking around last night, and believe I have found the
> issue:
> RedHat Linux 7.3 (the only distro I have access to currently) ships
> with a
> fairly challenged pthreads inplementation. The default mutex type
> (which you
> get from PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER) is, according the the man page,
> PTHREAD_MUTEX_FAST_NP which is not a recursive mutex. If a thread owns
> a
> mutex and attempts to lock the mutex again, it will hang.
>
> By replacing PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER with PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP
> for the
> two mutexes that are used recursively (debug_mutex and
> connections_mutex) I
> got my sample app to work flawlessly on Linux RedHat 7.3
>
> Sadly, the _NP suffix is used to indicate non-portable, so of course my
> FreeBSD box steadfastly refused to compile it. Darn.
>
> The correct way to do this appears to be:
>
> pthread_mutexattr_t *mattr;
> pthread_mutexattr_settype(mattr, PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE);
>
> (will verify this against FreeBSD when I get home, and Tru64 man page
> indicates support for this too, so I'll test that later). It won't
> work on
> RedHat Linux 7.3... I guess something like:
>
> #ifdef DODGY_PTHREADS
> #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE = PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP
> #endif
>
> might do it... if we could detect the problem during configure. How is
> this
> sort of detection handled in other cases (such as long long, etc)?
>
> The other solution I can think of is to eradicate the two recursive
> locks I
> found.
>
> One is simple: ECPGlog calls ECPGdebug, which share debug_mutex - it
> ought to
> be okay to use different mutexes for each of these functions (there's
> a risk
> someone might call ECPGdebug while someone else is running through
> ECPGlog,
> but I think it is less likely, since it is a debug mechanism.)
>
> The second recursive lock I found is ECPGdisconnect calling
> ECPGget_connection, both of which share a mutex. Would it be okay if
> we did
> the following:
>
> ECPGdisconnect() still locks connections_mutex, but calls
> ECPGget_connection_nr() instead of ECPGget_connection()
>
> ECPGget_connection() becomes a locking wrapper, which locks
> connections_mutex
> then calls ECPGget_connection_nr()
>
> ECPGget_connection_nr() is a non-locking function which implements what
> ECPGget_connection() currently does.
>
> I'm not sure if this sort of thing is okay (and there may be other
> recursive
> locking scenarios that I haven't exercised yet).
>
> What approach should I take? I'm leaning towards eradicating recursive
> locks,
> unless someone has a good reason not to.
>
>> All this does kinda raise the interesting question of why it worked
>> at all
>> on FreeBSD... probably different scheduling and blind luck, I suppose.
>
> FreeBSD 4.8 must have PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE as default mutex type.
> I'm a bit
> concerned about FreeBSD 4.2 though - I noticed (before I blew it away
> in
> favour of 4.8) that its pthreads implementation came from a package
> called
> linuxthreads.tgz - it might have inherited the same problematic
> behaviour.
> Could someone with access to or knowledge of FreeBSD 4.2 check what the
> default mutex type is there?
>
> Regards, Philip.
>
> I can just see the ad for 7.3's pthreads impementation
> "Fast mutexes: zero to deadlock in 6.9 milliseconds!"
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
> majordomo@postgresql.org
>
>
><><><><><><><><><
AgentM
agentm@cmu.edu
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux
@ 2003-06-27 02:10 Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
parent: AgentM <agentm@cmu.edu>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Philip Yarra @ 2003-06-27 02:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: AgentM <agentm@cmu.edu>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote:
> According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists.
Thanks for the info - useful to know.
> lock the mutex- potentially again). Either that or the recursive locks
> can be eliminated.
Avoiding recursive locks is my preference - the only two I have found ought to
be easy to avoid.
> Just for the record, OS X, Solaris 5.8, FreeBSD 4.8, and LinuxThreads
> support the UNIX98 version, so perhaps this isn't so important after
> all.
Add Tru64 (aka OSF1, aka DEC Unix) to that list. Just checked it.
Regards, Philip.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux
@ 2003-06-27 02:16 Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
parent: Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2003-06-27 02:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>; +Cc: AgentM <agentm@cmu.edu>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
BSD/OS supports:
The pthreads library conforms to IEEE Std1003.1c
(``POSIX'').
How is that different from UNIX98?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Yarra wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote:
> > According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists.
>
> Thanks for the info - useful to know.
>
> > lock the mutex- potentially again). Either that or the recursive locks
> > can be eliminated.
>
> Avoiding recursive locks is my preference - the only two I have found ought to
> be easy to avoid.
>
> > Just for the record, OS X, Solaris 5.8, FreeBSD 4.8, and LinuxThreads
> > support the UNIX98 version, so perhaps this isn't so important after
> > all.
>
> Add Tru64 (aka OSF1, aka DEC Unix) to that list. Just checked it.
>
> Regards, Philip.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux
@ 2003-06-27 02:31 Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
parent: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Philip Yarra @ 2003-06-27 02:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; +Cc: AgentM <agentm@cmu.edu>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> BSD/OS supports:
>
> The pthreads library conforms to IEEE Std1003.1c
> (``POSIX'').
>
> How is that different from UNIX98?
Just checked up on this: apparently version "g" of the standard does contain
such manipulation functions... and Tru64's man page for
pthread_mutexattr_settype claims:
Interfaces documented on this reference page conform to industry standards
as follows:
IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995, POSIX System Application Program Interface
Of course, they might be lying.
Anyway, hopefully I can just avoid these recursive locks, and avoid finding
out who supports what.
Regards, Philip.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-06-27 02:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-27 00:45 ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
2003-06-26 19:07 ` Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
2003-06-27 01:58 ` AgentM <agentm@cmu.edu>
2003-06-27 02:10 ` Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
2003-06-27 02:16 ` Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
2003-06-27 02:31 ` Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox