1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2012 Free Software Foundation,
Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
Hurd servers / VFS libraries are multithreaded.
# Implementation
* well-known threading libraries
* [[hurd/libthreads]]
* [[hurd/libpthread]]
# Design
See [[hurd/libports]]: roughly using one thread per
incoming request. This is not the best approach: it doesn't really make sense
to scale the number of worker threads with the number of incoming requests, but
instead they should be scaled according to the backends' characteristics.
The [[hurd/Critique]] should have some more on this.
[*Event-based Concurrency
Control*](http://soft.vub.ac.be/~tvcutsem/talks/presentations/T37_nobackground.pdf),
Tom Van Cutsem, 2009.
## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-08
<youpi> braunr: about limiting number of threads, IIRC the problem is that
for some threads, completing their work means triggering some action in
the server itself, and waiting for it (with, unfortunately, some lock
held), which never terminates when we can't create new threads any more
<braunr> youpi: the number of threads should be limited, but not globally
by libports
<braunr> pagers should throttle their writeback requests
<youpi> right
## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-07-16
<braunr> hm interesting
<braunr> when many threads are creating to handle requests, they
automatically create a pool of worker threads by staying around for some
time
<braunr> this time is given in the libport call
<braunr> but the thread always remain
<braunr> they must be used in turn each time a new requet comes in
<braunr> ah no :(, they're maintained by the periodic sync :(
<braunr> hm, still not that, so weird
<antrik> braunr: yes, that's a known problem: unused threads should go away
after some time, but that doesn't actually happen
<antrik> don't remember though whether it's broken for some reason, or
simply not implemented at all...
<antrik> (this was already a known issue when thread throttling was
discussed around 2005...)
<braunr> antrik: ok
<braunr> hm threads actually do finish ..
<braunr> libthreads retain them in a pool for faster allocations
<braunr> hm, it's worse than i thought
<braunr> i think the hurd does its job well
<braunr> the cthreads code never reaps threads
<braunr> when threads are finished, they just wait until assigned a new
invocation
<braunr> i don't understand ports_manage_port_operations_multithread :/
<braunr> i think i get it
<braunr> why do people write things in such a complicated way ..
<braunr> such code is error prone and confuses anyone
<braunr> i wonder how well nested functions interact with threads when
sharing variables :/
<braunr> the simple idea of nested functions hurts my head
<braunr> do you see my point ? :) variables on the stack automatically
shared between threads, without the need to explicitely pass them by
address
<antrik> braunr: I don't understand. why would variables on the stack be
shared between threads?...
<braunr> antrik: one function declares two variables, two nested functions,
and use these in separate threads
<braunr> are the local variables still "local"
<braunr> ?
<antrik> braunr: I would think so? why wouldn't they? threads have separate
stacks, right?...
<antrik> I must admit though that I have no idea how accessing local
variables from the parent function works at all...
<braunr> me neither
<braunr> why don't demuxers get a generic void * like every callback does
:((
<antrik> ?
<braunr> antrik: they get pointers to the input and output messages only
<antrik> why is this a problem?
<braunr> ports_manage_port_operations_multithread can be called multiple
times in the same process
<braunr> each call must have its own context
<braunr> currently this is done by using nested functions
<braunr> also, why demuxers return booleans while mach_msg_server_timeout
happily ignores them :(
<braunr> callbacks shouldn't return anything anyway
<braunr> but then you have a totally meaningless "return 1" in the middle
of the code
<braunr> i'd advise not using a single nested function
<antrik> I don't understand the remark about nested function
<braunr> they're just horrible extensions
<braunr> the compiler completely hides what happens behind the scenes, and
nasty bugs could come out of that
<braunr> i'll try to rewrite ports_manage_port_operations_multithread
without them and see if it changes anything
<braunr> but it's not easy
<braunr> also, it makes debugging harder :p
<braunr> i suspect gdb hangs are due to that, since threads directly start
on a nested function
<braunr> and if i'm right, they are created on the stack
<braunr> (which is also horrible for security concerns, but that's another
story)
<braunr> (at least the trampolines)
<antrik> I seriously doubt it will change anything... but feel free to
prove me wrong :-)
<braunr> well, i can see really weird things, but it may have nothing to do
with the fact functions are nested
<braunr> (i still strongly believe those shouldn't be used at all)
# Alternative approaches:
* <http://www.concurrencykit.org/>
* Continuation-passing style
* [[microkernel/Mach]] internally [[uses
continuations|microkernel/mach/continuation]], too.
* [[Erlang-style_parallelism]]
* [[!wikipedia Actor_model]]; also see overlap with
{{$capability#wikipedia_object-capability_model}}.
* [libtcr - Threaded Coroutine Library](http://oss.linbit.com/libtcr/)
* <http://monkey.org/~provos/libevent/>
---
See also: [[multiprocessing]].
|
