I'm monitoring a process with strace/ltrace in the hope to find and intercept a call that checks, and potentially activates some kind of globally shared lock.
While I've dealt with and read about several forms of interprocess locking on Linux before, I'm drawing a blank on what to calls to look for.
Currently my only suspect is futex() which comes up very early on in the process' execution.
Update0
There is some confusion about what I'm after. I'm monitoring an existing process for calls to persistent interprocess memory or equivalent. I'd like to know what system and library calls to look for. I have no intention call these myself, so naturally futex() will come up, I'm sure many libraries will implement their locking calls in terms of this, etc.
Update1
I'd like a list of function names or a link to documentation, that I should monitor at the ltrace and strace levels (and specifying which). Any other good advice about how to track and locate the global lock in mind would be great.
If you can start monitored process in valgrind, then there are two projects:
http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/wiki/ThreadSanitizer
and Helgrind
http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/hg-manual.html
Helgrind is aware of all the pthread
abstractions and tracks their effects
as accurately as it can. On x86 and
amd64 platforms, it understands and
partially handles implicit locking
arising from the use of the LOCK
instruction prefix.
So, this tools can detect even atomic memory accesses. And they will check pthread usage
flock is another good one
There are many system calls can be used for locking: flock, fcntl, and even create.
When you are using pthreads/sem_* locks they may be executed in user space so you'll never
see them in strace as futex is called only for pending operations. Like when you actually
need to wait.
Some operations can be done in user space only - like spinlocks - you'll never see them
unless they do some waits for timer - backoff so you may see only stuff like nanosleep when one lock waits for other.
So there is no "generic" way to trace them.
on systems with glibc ~ >= 2.5 (glibc + nptl) you can use process shared
semaphores (last parameter to sem_init), more precisely, posix unnamed semaphores
posix mutexes (with PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED to pthread_mutexattr_setpshared)
posix named semaphores (got from sem_open/sem_unlink)
system v (sysv) semaphores: semget, semop
On older systems with glibc 2.2, 2.3 with linuxthreads or on embedded systems with uClibc you can use ONLY system v (sysv) semaphores for iterprocess communication.
upd1: any IPC and socker must be checked.
Related
I tried to figure out if multiple processes or threads can execute concurrent syscalls, without one of them sleeping.
That's to say: Does OpenBSD use something like a Big Kernel Lock.
One would expect, that parallel Kernel access is possible. I tried to look into the syscall interface (code-reading and kernel debugging) and didn't find anything that would strike me as BKL.
However, when I look into the fork syscall implementation, it appears to me, that some global data is accessed without locking (e.g. nprocesses). I was wondering, if the scheduler (?), somehow, prevents parallel syscalls, or if I am overlooking something.
So: Does OpenBSD support parallel Kernel access and how about other BSDs?
Indeed, OpenBSD has a rather archaic model, which uses priority levels, distinct for each subsystem. See spl(9).
The mechanism originally allowed some preemption, but only from higher priority interrupts. On modern implementations of course the priority levels are implemented by mutexes.
The scheduler uses splsched.
So, there's several locks, and syscalls take place in parallel (across different CPUs) but serialize due to these locks at certain points, depending on the subsystem boundaries they're crossing. In other words, never two threads will be running code from the same subsystem concurrently; of course this could change at any moment if a lock is split or replaced.
Other systems:
This is inherited from NetBSD, so it's about the same.
FreeBSD has transitioned to a more granular approach, with some parts being lockless, much like Linux.
DragonflyBSD improves upon FreeBSD by providing serialization tokens for synchronization, and an inherently lockless approach to key mechanisms, like memory allocation (both userspace and kernel).
In Linux,
do all types of interprocess communication need system calls?
Types of interprocess communication are such as
Pipes
Signals
Message Queues
Semaphores
Shared Memory
Sockets
Do all types of interthread communication need system calls?
I would like to know if all interprocess communications and interthread communications involve switching from user mode to kernel mode so that the OS kernel will run to perform the communications? Since system calls all involve such switch, I asked if the communications need system calls.
For example, "Shared memory" can be used for both interprocess and interthread communcations, but i am not sure if it requires system calls or involvement of OS kernel to take over the cpu to perform something.
Thanks.
For interprocess communication I am pretty sure you cannot avoid system calls.
For interthread communication I cannot give you a definitive answer, but my educated guess would be "yes-and-no". You see, you can communicate between threads using thread-safe queues, and the only thing that a thread-safe queue needs in order to work is a lock. If a lock is unavailable at the moment that a thread wants to obtain it, then of course the system must be involved in order to put the thread in a waiting mode. But if the lock is available to obtain, then the thread should be able to proceed without the need for any system call.
That's what I would guess, and I would be quite disappointed to find out that things do not actually work this way, because that would mean that code which I have up until now been considering pretty innocent in fact has a tremendous additional hidden overhead.
Yes, every IPC was set by some syscalls(2).
It might happen that some IPC was set by a previous program (e.g. the program in the same process before execve), for example when running a pipeline like ls | ./yourprog it is the shell which has called pipe(2), not yourprog.
Since threads -in the same process- (by definition) share a common address space they can communicate using some shared data. However, they often need some syscall for synchronization (e.g. with mutexes), see e.g. futex(7) - because you want to avoid spinlocks (i.e. wasting CPU power for waiting). But in practice you should use pthreads(7)
In practice you cannot use shared memory (like shm_overview(7)) without synchronization (e.g. with semaphores, see sem_overview(7)). Notice that cache coherence is tricky and makes memory model sometimes non-intuitive (and processor specific).
At least, you do not need a system call for each read/write to shared memory. Setting up shared memory will for sure and synchronizing threads/processes will often involve system calls.
You could use flags in shared memory for synchronization, but note that read and write of flags may not be atomic actions.
(For example if you set up a location in shared memory to be 0 in the beginning and then check for it to be non-zero, while the other process sets it to non-zero when ready for something)
I m thinking to use Posix robust mutexes to protect shared resource among different processes (on Linux). However there are some doubts about safety in difference scenarios. I have the following questions:
Are robust mutexes implemented in the kernel or in user code?
If latter, what would happen if a process happens to crash while in a call to pthread_mutex_lock or pthread_mutex_unlock and while a shared pthread_mutex datastructure is getting updated?
I understand that if a process locked the mutex and dies, a thread in another process will be awaken and return EOWNERDEAD. However, what would happen if the process dies (in unlikely case) exactly when the pthread_mutex datastructure (in shared memory) is being updated? Will the mutex get corrupted in that case? What would happen to another process that is mapped to the same shared memory if it were to call a pthread_mutex function?
Can the mutex still be recovered in this case?
This question applies to any pthread object with PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED attribute. Is it safe to call functions like pthread_mutex_lock, pthread_mutex_unlock, pthread_cond_signal, etc. concurrently on the same object from different processes? Are they thread-safe across different processes?
From the man-page for pthreads:
Over time, two threading implementations have been provided by the
GNU C library on Linux:
LinuxThreads
This is the original Pthreads implementation. Since glibc
2.4, this implementation is no longer supported.
NPTL (Native POSIX Threads Library)
This is the modern Pthreads implementation. By comparison
with LinuxThreads, NPTL provides closer conformance to the
requirements of the POSIX.1 specification and better
performance when creating large numbers of threads. NPTL is
available since glibc 2.3.2, and requires features that are
present in the Linux 2.6 kernel.
Both of these are so-called 1:1 implementations, meaning that each
thread maps to a kernel scheduling entity. Both threading
implementations employ the Linux clone(2) system call. In NPTL,
thread synchronization primitives (mutexes, thread joining, and so
on) are implemented using the Linux futex(2) system call.
And from man futex(7):
In its bare form, a futex is an aligned integer which is touched only
by atomic assembler instructions. Processes can share this integer
using mmap(2), via shared memory segments or because they share
memory space, in which case the application is commonly called
multithreaded.
An additional remark found here:
(In case you’re wondering how they work in shared memory: Futexes are keyed upon their physical address)
Summarizing, Linux decided to implement pthreads on top of their "native" futex primitive, which indeed lives in the user process address space. For shared synchronization primitives, this would be shared memory and the other processes will still be able to see it, after one process dies.
What happens in case of process termination? Ingo Molnar wrote an article called Robust Futexes about just that. The relevant quote:
Robust Futexes
There is one race possible though: since adding to and removing from the
list is done after the futex is acquired by glibc, there is a few
instructions window for the thread (or process) to die there, leaving
the futex hung. To protect against this possibility, userspace (glibc)
also maintains a simple per-thread 'list_op_pending' field, to allow the
kernel to clean up if the thread dies after acquiring the lock, but just
before it could have added itself to the list. Glibc sets this
list_op_pending field before it tries to acquire the futex, and clears
it after the list-add (or list-remove) has finished
Summary
Where this leaves you for other platforms, is open-ended. Suffice it to say that the Linux implementation, at least, has taken great care to meet our common-sense expectation of robustness.
Seeing that other operating systems usually resort to Kernel-based synchronization primitives in the first place, it makes sense to me to assume their implementations would be even more naturally robust.
Following the documentation from here: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_mutexattr_getrobust.html, it does read that in a fully POSIX compliant OS, shared mutex with the robust flag will behave in the way you'd expect.
The problem obviously is that not all OS are fully POSIX compliant. Not even those claiming to be. Process shared mutexes and in particular robust ones are among those finer points that are often not part of an OS's implementation of POSIX.
I am trying to use robust futex based pthread mutex in Linux because I need to be both fast and robust (recover the "dead" lock). How can I check if the pthread mutex library on any Linux system is based off robust futex?
Thanks!
If you have the futex(2) system call and if it is used (just strace(1) a 10 line application that uses mutexes) then you have the robust feature as the futex(2) system call only entered the kernel after robustness has been built into it. This does not mean that you are using robust futexes, just that you have the feature in the kernel.
Next you want to know that your libc supports it. Any version above 2.9 supports it. Just check your version.
If you are writing a multi-threaded application then you don't really need the robustness of the futexes since you control the threads and can make sure that threads release the mutexes they use before they die or register a cleanup function to do the lock releasing (there is a pthread api for that). If you are still worried see my notes below about using robust mutexes anyway.
I just want to make it plain & clear that you are going to pay in performance if you want to use robust futexes in a multi-threaded application. The main use of robust futexes is to use them as synchronization primitives in multi-process applications where the chance of one component dying without killing the rest of the components is high compared to the same chance in a multi-threaded application where the abnormal death of a thread means the death of the entire application.
To use robust futexes in either a multi-threaded or a multi-process application you need to mark the futexes as robust by using the undocumented function pthread_mutexattr_setrobust(3). I've submitted a bug report to the manual pages maintainers to add documentation about that function. You need to pass PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST to that function as opposed to PTHREAD_MUTEX_STALLED which is the default.
In a multi-threaded application marking the mutex as robust is all you have to do.
To use robust futexes in a multi-process application you need to also mark the futex as being shared across processes by calling the (fortunately documented) function pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(3) and pass PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED to it. This is opposed to the default PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE.
Actually in strace(1) you will not see acquisition and release of the locks but you will see calls to set_robust_list(2) if your futex is robust.
I hope this helps.
The title might not be clear enough because I don't know how to define my questions actually.
I understand Pthread is a thread library meeting POSIX standard (about POSIX, see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posix). It is available in Unix-like OS.
About thread, I read that there are three different models:
User level thread: the kernel does not know it. User himself creates/implements/destroy threads.
Kernel level thread: kernel directly supports multiple threads of control in a process.
Light weight process(LWP): scheduled by kernel but can be bounded with user threads.
Did you see my confusion? When I call pthread_create() to create a thread, did I create a user level thread? I guess so. So can I say, Pthread offers a user level solution for threads? It can not manipulate kernel/LWP?
#paulsm4 I am doubtful about your comment that kernel knows every thing. In this particular context of user level threads, the kernel is unaware of the fact that such a thing is happening. A user level thread's scheduling is maintained by the user himself (via the interface provided by a library) and the kernel ends up allotting just a single kernel thread to the whole process. Kernel would treat the process as a single threaded and any blocking call by one of the threads would end up blocking all the threads of that process.
Refer to http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/OpSystems/Myos/threads.htm
In Linux, pthread is implemented as a lightweight process. Kernel (v2.6+) is actually implemented with NPTL. Let me quote the wiki content:
NPTL is a so-called 1×1 threads library, in that threads created by the user (via the pthread_create() library function) are in 1-1 correspondence with schedulable entities in the kernel (tasks, in the Linux case). This is the simplest possible threading implementation.
So pthread in linux kernel is actually implemented as kernel thread.
pthreads, per se, isn't really a threading library. pthreads is the interface which a specific threading library implements, using the concurrency resources available on that platform. So there's a pthreads implementation on linux, on bsd, on solaris, etc., and while the interface (the header files and the meaning of the calls) is the same, the implementation of each is different.
So what pthread_create actually does, in terms of kernel thread objects, varies between OSes and pthread library implementations. At a first approximation, you don't need to know (that's stuff that the pthread abstraction allows you to not need to know about). Eventually you might need to see "behind the curtain", but for most pthread users that's not necessary.
If you want to know what a /specific/ pthread implementation does, on a specific OS, you'll need to clarify your question. What Solaris and Linux do, for example, is very different.
Q: I understand Pthread is a thread library meeting POSIX standard
A: Yes. Actually, "Pthreads" stands for "Posix threads":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pthreads
Q: It is available in Unix-like OS.
A: Actually, it's available for many different OSs ... including Windows, MacOS ... and, of course, Linux, BSD and Solaris.
Q: About thread, I read that there are three different models
Now you're getting fuzzy. "Threads" is a very generic term. There are many, many different models. And many, many different ways you can characterize and/or implement "threads". Including stuff like the Java threading model, or the Ada threading model.
Q: When I call pthread_create() to create a thread, did I create a
user level thread?
A: Yes: Just about everything you do in user space is "protected" in your own, private "user space".
Q: User level thread: the kernel does not know it.
A: No. The kernel knows everything :)
Q: Kernel level thread: kernel directly supports multiple threads of
control in a process.
A: Yes, there is such a thing as "kernel threads".
And, as it happens, Linux makes EXTENSIVE use of kernel threads. For example, every single process in a Linux system is a "kernel thread". And every user-created pthread is ALSO implemented as a new "kernel thread". As are "worker threads" (which are completely invisible to any user-level process).
But this is an advanced topic you do NOT need to understand in order to effectively use pthreads. Here's a great book that discussed this - and many other topics - in detail:
Linux Kernel Development, Robert Love
Remember: "Pthreads" is an interface. How it's implemented depends on the platform. Linux uses kernel threads; Windows uses Win32 threads, etc.
===========================================================================
ADDENDUM:
Since people still seem to be hitting this old thread, I thought it would be useful to reference this post:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/11255174/421195
Linux typically uses two implementations of pthreads:
LinuxThreads and Native
POSIX Thread Library(NPTL),
although the former is largely obsolete. Kernel from 2.6 provides
NPTL, which provides much closer conformance to SUSv3, and perform
better especially when there are many threads.
You can query the
specific implementation of pthreads under shell using command:
getconf GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION
You can also get a more detailed implementation difference in The
Linux Programming Interface.
"Pthreads" is a library, based on the Posix standard. How a pthreads library is implemented will differ from platform to platform and library to library.
I find previous answers not as satisfying or clear as I would have liked so here goes:
When you call
pthread_create(...)
you always create a new user-level thread. And assuming that there is OS, there is always one or more kernel thread...but let's dive deeper:
According to "Operating system concepts" 10th edition,the actual classification we should be looking at (when it comes to thread libraries) is how the user level threads are mapped onto kernel threads (and that's what the question really meant).
The models are one to one (each user-level thread within a single process is mapped to a different kernel thread),many to one (the thread library is "user level" so all of the different threads within a single process are mapped to a single kernel thread,and the threads data structures, context switch etc are dealt with at user level and not by the OS [meaning that if a thread blocks on some I/O call, the entire process might potentially block]), and many to many (something in between,obviously the number of user-level threads is greater or equal to the number of kernel threads it is being mapped onto).
Now,pthreads is a specification and not an implementation, and the implementation does depend on the OS to which it is written. It could be any one of those models (notice that "many to many" is very flexible).
So,as an example,on Linux and Windows (the most popular OSs for years now,where the model is "one to one") the implementation is "one to one".
Pthreads is just a standardized interface for threading libraries. Whether an OS thread or a lightweight thread is created depends on the library you use. Nevertheless, my first guest would be that your threads are “real” OS-level threads.