diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc')
| -rw-r--r-- | ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc | 448 |
1 files changed, 448 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc b/ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..b0a3df5fa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc @@ -0,0 +1,448 @@ +/* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 8; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*- */ +/* vim: set ts=8 sts=2 et sw=2 tw=80: */ +// Copyright (c) 2006-2008 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved. +// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be +// found in the LICENSE file. + +#include "base/condition_variable.h" + +#include <stack> + +#include "base/lock.h" +#include "base/logging.h" +#include "base/time.h" + +using base::TimeDelta; + +ConditionVariable::ConditionVariable(Lock* user_lock) + : user_lock_(*user_lock), + run_state_(RUNNING), + allocation_counter_(0), + recycling_list_size_(0) { + DCHECK(user_lock); +} + +ConditionVariable::~ConditionVariable() { + AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_); + run_state_ = SHUTDOWN; // Prevent any more waiting. + + DCHECK_EQ(recycling_list_size_, allocation_counter_); + if (recycling_list_size_ != allocation_counter_) { // Rare shutdown problem. + // There are threads of execution still in this->TimedWait() and yet the + // caller has instigated the destruction of this instance :-/. + // A common reason for such "overly hasty" destruction is that the caller + // was not willing to wait for all the threads to terminate. Such hasty + // actions are a violation of our usage contract, but we'll give the + // waiting thread(s) one last chance to exit gracefully (prior to our + // destruction). + // Note: waiting_list_ *might* be empty, but recycling is still pending. + AutoUnlock auto_unlock(internal_lock_); + Broadcast(); // Make sure all waiting threads have been signaled. + Sleep(10); // Give threads a chance to grab internal_lock_. + // All contained threads should be blocked on user_lock_ by now :-). + } // Reacquire internal_lock_. + + DCHECK_EQ(recycling_list_size_, allocation_counter_); +} + +void ConditionVariable::Wait() { + // Default to "wait forever" timing, which means have to get a Signal() + // or Broadcast() to come out of this wait state. + TimedWait(TimeDelta::FromMilliseconds(INFINITE)); +} + +void ConditionVariable::TimedWait(const TimeDelta& max_time) { + Event* waiting_event; + HANDLE handle; + { + AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_); + if (RUNNING != run_state_) return; // Destruction in progress. + waiting_event = GetEventForWaiting(); + handle = waiting_event->handle(); + DCHECK(handle); + } // Release internal_lock. + + { + AutoUnlock unlock(user_lock_); // Release caller's lock + WaitForSingleObject(handle, static_cast<DWORD>(max_time.InMilliseconds())); + // Minimize spurious signal creation window by recycling asap. + AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_); + RecycleEvent(waiting_event); + // Release internal_lock_ + } // Reacquire callers lock to depth at entry. +} + +// Broadcast() is guaranteed to signal all threads that were waiting (i.e., had +// a cv_event internally allocated for them) before Broadcast() was called. +void ConditionVariable::Broadcast() { + std::stack<HANDLE> handles; // See FAQ-question-10. + { + AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_); + if (waiting_list_.IsEmpty()) + return; + while (!waiting_list_.IsEmpty()) + // This is not a leak from waiting_list_. See FAQ-question 12. + handles.push(waiting_list_.PopBack()->handle()); + } // Release internal_lock_. + while (!handles.empty()) { + SetEvent(handles.top()); + handles.pop(); + } +} + +// Signal() will select one of the waiting threads, and signal it (signal its +// cv_event). For better performance we signal the thread that went to sleep +// most recently (LIFO). If we want fairness, then we wake the thread that has +// been sleeping the longest (FIFO). +void ConditionVariable::Signal() { + HANDLE handle; + { + AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_); + if (waiting_list_.IsEmpty()) + return; // No one to signal. + // Only performance option should be used. + // This is not a leak from waiting_list. See FAQ-question 12. + handle = waiting_list_.PopBack()->handle(); // LIFO. + } // Release internal_lock_. + SetEvent(handle); +} + +// GetEventForWaiting() provides a unique cv_event for any caller that needs to +// wait. This means that (worst case) we may over time create as many cv_event +// objects as there are threads simultaneously using this instance's Wait() +// functionality. +ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::GetEventForWaiting() { + // We hold internal_lock, courtesy of Wait(). + Event* cv_event; + if (0 == recycling_list_size_) { + DCHECK(recycling_list_.IsEmpty()); + cv_event = new Event(); + cv_event->InitListElement(); + allocation_counter_++; + // CHECK_NE is not defined in our codebase, so we have to use CHECK + CHECK(cv_event->handle()); + } else { + cv_event = recycling_list_.PopFront(); + recycling_list_size_--; + } + waiting_list_.PushBack(cv_event); + return cv_event; +} + +// RecycleEvent() takes a cv_event that was previously used for Wait()ing, and +// recycles it for use in future Wait() calls for this or other threads. +// Note that there is a tiny chance that the cv_event is still signaled when we +// obtain it, and that can cause spurious signals (if/when we re-use the +// cv_event), but such is quite rare (see FAQ-question-5). +void ConditionVariable::RecycleEvent(Event* used_event) { + // We hold internal_lock, courtesy of Wait(). + // If the cv_event timed out, then it is necessary to remove it from + // waiting_list_. If it was selected by Broadcast() or Signal(), then it is + // already gone. + used_event->Extract(); // Possibly redundant + recycling_list_.PushBack(used_event); + recycling_list_size_++; +} +//------------------------------------------------------------------------------ +// The next section provides the implementation for the private Event class. +//------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +// Event provides a doubly-linked-list of events for use exclusively by the +// ConditionVariable class. + +// This custom container was crafted because no simple combination of STL +// classes appeared to support the functionality required. The specific +// unusual requirement for a linked-list-class is support for the Extract() +// method, which can remove an element from a list, potentially for insertion +// into a second list. Most critically, the Extract() method is idempotent, +// turning the indicated element into an extracted singleton whether it was +// contained in a list or not. This functionality allows one (or more) of +// threads to do the extraction. The iterator that identifies this extractable +// element (in this case, a pointer to the list element) can be used after +// arbitrary manipulation of the (possibly) enclosing list container. In +// general, STL containers do not provide iterators that can be used across +// modifications (insertions/extractions) of the enclosing containers, and +// certainly don't provide iterators that can be used if the identified +// element is *deleted* (removed) from the container. + +// It is possible to use multiple redundant containers, such as an STL list, +// and an STL map, to achieve similar container semantics. This container has +// only O(1) methods, while the corresponding (multiple) STL container approach +// would have more complex O(log(N)) methods (yeah... N isn't that large). +// Multiple containers also makes correctness more difficult to assert, as +// data is redundantly stored and maintained, which is generally evil. + +ConditionVariable::Event::Event() : handle_(0) { + next_ = prev_ = this; // Self referencing circular. +} + +ConditionVariable::Event::~Event() { + if (0 == handle_) { + // This is the list holder + while (!IsEmpty()) { + Event* cv_event = PopFront(); + DCHECK(cv_event->ValidateAsItem()); + delete cv_event; + } + } + DCHECK(IsSingleton()); + if (0 != handle_) { + int ret_val = CloseHandle(handle_); + DCHECK(ret_val); + } +} + +// Change a container instance permanently into an element of a list. +void ConditionVariable::Event::InitListElement() { + DCHECK(!handle_); + handle_ = CreateEvent(NULL, false, false, NULL); + CHECK(handle_); +} + +// Methods for use on lists. +bool ConditionVariable::Event::IsEmpty() const { + DCHECK(ValidateAsList()); + return IsSingleton(); +} + +void ConditionVariable::Event::PushBack(Event* other) { + DCHECK(ValidateAsList()); + DCHECK(other->ValidateAsItem()); + DCHECK(other->IsSingleton()); + // Prepare other for insertion. + other->prev_ = prev_; + other->next_ = this; + // Cut into list. + prev_->next_ = other; + prev_ = other; + DCHECK(ValidateAsDistinct(other)); +} + +ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::Event::PopFront() { + DCHECK(ValidateAsList()); + DCHECK(!IsSingleton()); + return next_->Extract(); +} + +ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::Event::PopBack() { + DCHECK(ValidateAsList()); + DCHECK(!IsSingleton()); + return prev_->Extract(); +} + +// Methods for use on list elements. +// Accessor method. +HANDLE ConditionVariable::Event::handle() const { + DCHECK(ValidateAsItem()); + return handle_; +} + +// Pull an element from a list (if it's in one). +ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::Event::Extract() { + DCHECK(ValidateAsItem()); + if (!IsSingleton()) { + // Stitch neighbors together. + next_->prev_ = prev_; + prev_->next_ = next_; + // Make extractee into a singleton. + prev_ = next_ = this; + } + DCHECK(IsSingleton()); + return this; +} + +// Method for use on a list element or on a list. +bool ConditionVariable::Event::IsSingleton() const { + DCHECK(ValidateLinks()); + return next_ == this; +} + +// Provide pre/post conditions to validate correct manipulations. +bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateAsDistinct(Event* other) const { + return ValidateLinks() && other->ValidateLinks() && (this != other); +} + +bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateAsItem() const { + return (0 != handle_) && ValidateLinks(); +} + +bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateAsList() const { + return (0 == handle_) && ValidateLinks(); +} + +bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateLinks() const { + // Make sure both of our neighbors have links that point back to us. + // We don't do the O(n) check and traverse the whole loop, and instead only + // do a local check to (and returning from) our immediate neighbors. + return (next_->prev_ == this) && (prev_->next_ == this); +} + + +/* +FAQ On subtle implementation details: + +1) What makes this problem subtle? Please take a look at "Strategies +for Implementing POSIX Condition Variables on Win32" by Douglas +C. Schmidt and Irfan Pyarali. +http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/win32-cv-1.html It includes +discussions of numerous flawed strategies for implementing this +functionality. I'm not convinced that even the final proposed +implementation has semantics that are as nice as this implementation +(especially with regard to Broadcast() and the impact on threads that +try to Wait() after a Broadcast() has been called, but before all the +original waiting threads have been signaled). + +2) Why can't you use a single wait_event for all threads that call +Wait()? See FAQ-question-1, or consider the following: If a single +event were used, then numerous threads calling Wait() could release +their cs locks, and be preempted just before calling +WaitForSingleObject(). If a call to Broadcast() was then presented on +a second thread, it would be impossible to actually signal all +waiting(?) threads. Some number of SetEvent() calls *could* be made, +but there could be no guarantee that those led to to more than one +signaled thread (SetEvent()'s may be discarded after the first!), and +there could be no guarantee that the SetEvent() calls didn't just +awaken "other" threads that hadn't even started waiting yet (oops). +Without any limit on the number of requisite SetEvent() calls, the +system would be forced to do many such calls, allowing many new waits +to receive spurious signals. + +3) How does this implementation cause spurious signal events? The +cause in this implementation involves a race between a signal via +time-out and a signal via Signal() or Broadcast(). The series of +actions leading to this are: + +a) Timer fires, and a waiting thread exits the line of code: + + WaitForSingleObject(waiting_event, max_time.InMilliseconds()); + +b) That thread (in (a)) is randomly pre-empted after the above line, +leaving the waiting_event reset (unsignaled) and still in the +waiting_list_. + +c) A call to Signal() (or Broadcast()) on a second thread proceeds, and +selects the waiting cv_event (identified in step (b)) as the event to revive +via a call to SetEvent(). + +d) The Signal() method (step c) calls SetEvent() on waiting_event (step b). + +e) The waiting cv_event (step b) is now signaled, but no thread is +waiting on it. + +f) When that waiting_event (step b) is reused, it will immediately +be signaled (spuriously). + + +4) Why do you recycle events, and cause spurious signals? First off, +the spurious events are very rare. They can only (I think) appear +when the race described in FAQ-question-3 takes place. This should be +very rare. Most(?) uses will involve only timer expiration, or only +Signal/Broadcast() actions. When both are used, it will be rare that +the race will appear, and it would require MANY Wait() and signaling +activities. If this implementation did not recycle events, then it +would have to create and destroy events for every call to Wait(). +That allocation/deallocation and associated construction/destruction +would be costly (per wait), and would only be a rare benefit (when the +race was "lost" and a spurious signal took place). That would be bad +(IMO) optimization trade-off. Finally, such spurious events are +allowed by the specification of condition variables (such as +implemented in Vista), and hence it is better if any user accommodates +such spurious events (see usage note in condition_variable.h). + +5) Why don't you reset events when you are about to recycle them, or +about to reuse them, so that the spurious signals don't take place? +The thread described in FAQ-question-3 step c may be pre-empted for an +arbitrary length of time before proceeding to step d. As a result, +the wait_event may actually be re-used *before* step (e) is reached. +As a result, calling reset would not help significantly. + +6) How is it that the callers lock is released atomically with the +entry into a wait state? We commit to the wait activity when we +allocate the wait_event for use in a given call to Wait(). This +allocation takes place before the caller's lock is released (and +actually before our internal_lock_ is released). That allocation is +the defining moment when "the wait state has been entered," as that +thread *can* now be signaled by a call to Broadcast() or Signal(). +Hence we actually "commit to wait" before releasing the lock, making +the pair effectively atomic. + +8) Why do you need to lock your data structures during waiting, as the +caller is already in possession of a lock? We need to Acquire() and +Release() our internal lock during Signal() and Broadcast(). If we tried +to use a callers lock for this purpose, we might conflict with their +external use of the lock. For example, the caller may use to consistently +hold a lock on one thread while calling Signal() on another, and that would +block Signal(). + +9) Couldn't a more efficient implementation be provided if you +preclude using more than one external lock in conjunction with a +single ConditionVariable instance? Yes, at least it could be viewed +as a simpler API (since you don't have to reiterate the lock argument +in each Wait() call). One of the constructors now takes a specific +lock as an argument, and a there are corresponding Wait() calls that +don't specify a lock now. It turns that the resulting implmentation +can't be made more efficient, as the internal lock needs to be used by +Signal() and Broadcast(), to access internal data structures. As a +result, I was not able to utilize the user supplied lock (which is +being used by the user elsewhere presumably) to protect the private +member access. + +9) Since you have a second lock, how can be be sure that there is no +possible deadlock scenario? Our internal_lock_ is always the last +lock acquired, and the first one released, and hence a deadlock (due +to critical section problems) is impossible as a consequence of our +lock. + +10) When doing a Broadcast(), why did you copy all the events into +an STL queue, rather than making a linked-loop, and iterating over it? +The iterating during Broadcast() is done so outside the protection +of the internal lock. As a result, other threads, such as the thread +wherein a related event is waiting, could asynchronously manipulate +the links around a cv_event. As a result, the link structure cannot +be used outside a lock. Broadcast() could iterate over waiting +events by cycling in-and-out of the protection of the internal_lock, +but that appears more expensive than copying the list into an STL +stack. + +11) Why did the lock.h file need to be modified so much for this +change? Central to a Condition Variable is the atomic release of a +lock during a Wait(). This places Wait() functionality exactly +mid-way between the two classes, Lock and Condition Variable. Given +that there can be nested Acquire()'s of locks, and Wait() had to +Release() completely a held lock, it was necessary to augment the Lock +class with a recursion counter. Even more subtle is the fact that the +recursion counter (in a Lock) must be protected, as many threads can +access it asynchronously. As a positive fallout of this, there are +now some DCHECKS to be sure no one Release()s a Lock more than they +Acquire()ed it, and there is ifdef'ed functionality that can detect +nested locks (legal under windows, but not under Posix). + +12) Why is it that the cv_events removed from list in Broadcast() and Signal() +are not leaked? How are they recovered?? The cv_events that appear to leak are +taken from the waiting_list_. For each element in that list, there is currently +a thread in or around the WaitForSingleObject() call of Wait(), and those +threads have references to these otherwise leaked events. They are passed as +arguments to be recycled just aftre returning from WaitForSingleObject(). + +13) Why did you use a custom container class (the linked list), when STL has +perfectly good containers, such as an STL list? The STL list, as with any +container, does not guarantee the utility of an iterator across manipulation +(such as insertions and deletions) of the underlying container. The custom +double-linked-list container provided that assurance. I don't believe any +combination of STL containers provided the services that were needed at the same +O(1) efficiency as the custom linked list. The unusual requirement +for the container class is that a reference to an item within a container (an +iterator) needed to be maintained across an arbitrary manipulation of the +container. This requirement exposes itself in the Wait() method, where a +waiting_event must be selected prior to the WaitForSingleObject(), and then it +must be used as part of recycling to remove the related instance from the +waiting_list. A hash table (STL map) could be used, but I was embarrased to +use a complex and relatively low efficiency container when a doubly linked list +provided O(1) performance in all required operations. Since other operations +to provide performance-and/or-fairness required queue (FIFO) and list (LIFO) +containers, I would also have needed to use an STL list/queue as well as an STL +map. In the end I decided it would be "fun" to just do it right, and I +put so many assertions (DCHECKs) into the container class that it is trivial to +code review and validate its correctness. + +*/ |