/* $NetBSD: pthread_specific.c,v 1.9 2003/07/17 20:40:43 nathanw Exp $ */ /*- * Copyright (c) 2001 The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. * All rights reserved. * * This code is derived from software contributed to The NetBSD Foundation * by Nathan J. Williams. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the NetBSD * Foundation, Inc. and its contributors. * 4. Neither the name of The NetBSD Foundation nor the names of its * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE NETBSD FOUNDATION, INC. AND CONTRIBUTORS * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED * TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR CONTRIBUTORS * BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. */ #include __RCSID("$NetBSD: pthread_specific.c,v 1.9 2003/07/17 20:40:43 nathanw Exp $"); /* Functions and structures dealing with thread-specific data */ #include #include "pthread.h" #include "pthread_int.h" static pthread_mutex_t tsd_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; static int nextkey; int pthread__tsd_alloc[PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX]; void (*pthread__tsd_destructors[PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX])(void *); __strong_alias(__libc_thr_keycreate,pthread_key_create) __strong_alias(__libc_thr_setspecific,pthread_setspecific) __strong_alias(__libc_thr_getspecific,pthread_getspecific) __strong_alias(__libc_thr_keydelete,pthread_key_delete) int pthread_key_create(pthread_key_t *key, void (*destructor)(void *)) { int i; /* Get a lock on the allocation list */ pthread_mutex_lock(&tsd_mutex); /* Find an avaliable slot */ /* 1. Search from "nextkey" to the end of the list. */ for (i = nextkey; i < PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX; i++) if (pthread__tsd_alloc[i] == 0) break; if (i == PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX) { /* 2. If that didn't work, search from the start * of the list back to "nextkey". */ for (i = 0; i < nextkey; i++) if (pthread__tsd_alloc[i] == 0) break; if (i == nextkey) { /* If we didn't find one here, there isn't one * to be found. */ pthread_mutex_unlock(&tsd_mutex); return EAGAIN; } } /* Got one. */ pthread__tsd_alloc[i] = 1; nextkey = (i + 1) % PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX; pthread__tsd_destructors[i] = destructor; pthread_mutex_unlock(&tsd_mutex); *key = i; return 0; } int pthread_key_delete(pthread_key_t key) { /* * This is tricky. The standard says of pthread_key_create() * that new keys have the value NULL associated with them in * all threads. According to people who were present at the * standardization meeting, that requirement was written * before pthread_key_delete() was introduced, and not * reconsidered when it was. * * See David Butenhof's article in comp.programming.threads: * Subject: Re: TSD key reusing issue * Message-ID: * Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:06:17 -0500 * http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=u97d8.29%24fL6.200%40news.cpqcorp.net * * Given: * * 1: Applications are not required to clear keys in all * threads before calling pthread_key_delete(). * 2: Clearing pointers without running destructors is a * memory leak. * 3: The pthread_key_delete() function is expressly forbidden * to run any destructors. * * Option 1: Make this function effectively a no-op and * prohibit key reuse. This is a possible resource-exhaustion * problem given that we have a static storage area for keys, * but having a non-static storage area would make * pthread_setspecific() expensive (might need to realloc the * TSD array). * * Option 2: Ignore the specified behavior of * pthread_key_create() and leave the old values. If an * application deletes a key that still has non-NULL values in * some threads... it's probably a memory leak and hence * incorrect anyway, and we're within our rights to let the * application lose. However, it's possible (if unlikely) that * the application is storing pointers to non-heap data, or * non-pointers that have been wedged into a void pointer, so * we can't entirely write off such applications as incorrect. * This could also lead to running (new) destructors on old * data that was never supposed to be associated with that * destructor. * * Option 3: Follow the specified behavior of * pthread_key_create(). Either pthread_key_create() or * pthread_key_delete() would then have to clear the values in * every thread's slot for that key. In order to guarantee the * visibility of the NULL value in other threads, there would * have to be synchronization operations in both the clearer * and pthread_getspecific(). Putting synchronization in * pthread_getspecific() is a big performance lose. But in * reality, only (buggy) reuse of an old key would require * this synchronization; for a new key, there has to be a * memory-visibility propagating event between the call to * pthread_key_create() and pthread_getspecific() with that * key, so setting the entries to NULL without synchronization * will work, subject to problem (2) above. However, it's kind * of slow. * * Note that the argument in option 3 only applies because we * keep TSD in ordinary memory which follows the pthreads * visibility rules. The visibility rules are not required by * the standard to apply to TSD, so the argument doesn't * apply in general, just to this implementation. */ /* For the momemt, we're going with option 1. */ pthread_mutex_lock(&tsd_mutex); pthread__tsd_destructors[key] = NULL; pthread_mutex_unlock(&tsd_mutex); return 0; } int pthread_setspecific(pthread_key_t key, const void *value) { pthread_t self; if (pthread__tsd_alloc[key] == 0) return EINVAL; self = pthread__self(); /* * We can't win here on constness. Having been given a * "const void *", we can only assign it to other const void *, * and return it from functions that are const void *, without * generating a warning. */ /*LINTED const cast*/ self->pt_specific[key] = (void *) value; return 0; } void* pthread_getspecific(pthread_key_t key) { pthread_t self; self = pthread__self(); return (self->pt_specific[key]); } /* Perform thread-exit-time destruction of thread-specific data. */ void pthread__destroy_tsd(pthread_t self) { int i, done, iterations; void *val; void (*destructor)(void *); /* Butenhof, section 5.4.2 (page 167): * * ``Also, Pthreads sets the thread-specific data value for a * key to NULL before calling that key's destructor (passing * the previous value of the key) when a thread terminates [*]. * ... * [*] That is, unfortunately, not what the standard * says. This is one of the problems with formal standards - * they say what they say, not what they were intended to * say. Somehow, an error crept in, and the sentence * specifying that "the implementation clears the * thread-specific data value before calling the destructor" * was deleted. Nobody noticed, and the standard was approved * with the error. So the standard says (by omission) that if * you want to write a portable application using * thread-specific data, that will not hang on thread * termination, you must call pthread_setspecific within your * destructor function to change the value to NULL. This would * be silly, and any serious implementation of Pthreads will * violate the standard in this respect. Of course, the * standard will be fixed, probably by the 1003.1n amendment * (assorted corrections to 1003.1c-1995), but that will take * a while.'' */ iterations = 4; /* We're not required to try very hard */ do { done = 1; for (i = 0; i < PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX; i++) { if (self->pt_specific[i] != NULL) { pthread_mutex_lock(&tsd_mutex); destructor = pthread__tsd_destructors[i]; pthread_mutex_unlock(&tsd_mutex); if (destructor != NULL) { done = 0; val = self->pt_specific[i]; self->pt_specific[i] = NULL; /* see above */ (*destructor)(val); } } } } while (!done && iterations--); }