уничтожить и инициализировать мьютекс (destroy and initialize a mutex)
Обоснование (Rationale)
If an implementation detects that the value specified by the
mutex argument to pthread_mutex_destroy() does not refer to an
initialized mutex, it is recommended that the function should
fail and report an [EINVAL] error.
If an implementation detects that the value specified by the
mutex argument to pthread_mutex_destroy() or pthread_mutex_init()
refers to a locked mutex or a mutex that is referenced (for
example, while being used in a pthread_cond_timedwait() or
pthread_cond_wait()) by another thread, or detects that the value
specified by the mutex argument to pthread_mutex_init() refers to
an already initialized mutex, it is recommended that the function
should fail and report an [EBUSY] error.
If an implementation detects that the value specified by the attr
argument to pthread_mutex_init() does not refer to an initialized
mutex attributes object, it is recommended that the function
should fail and report an [EINVAL] error.
Alternate Implementations Possible
This volume of POSIX.1‐2017 supports several alternative
implementations of mutexes. An implementation may store the lock
directly in the object of type pthread_mutex_t. Alternatively,
an implementation may store the lock in the heap and merely store
a pointer, handle, or unique ID in the mutex object. Either
implementation has advantages or may be required on certain
hardware configurations. So that portable code can be written
that is invariant to this choice, this volume of POSIX.1‐2017
does not define assignment or equality for this type, and it uses
the term ``initialize'' to reinforce the (more restrictive)
notion that the lock may actually reside in the mutex object
itself.
Note that this precludes an over-specification of the type of the
mutex or condition variable and motivates the opaqueness of the
type.
An implementation is permitted, but not required, to have
pthread_mutex_destroy() store an illegal value into the mutex.
This may help detect erroneous programs that try to lock (or
otherwise reference) a mutex that has already been destroyed.
Tradeoff Between Error Checks and Performance Supported
Many error conditions that can occur are not required to be
detected by the implementation in order to let implementations
trade off performance versus degree of error checking according
to the needs of their specific applications and execution
environment. As a general rule, conditions caused by the system
(such as insufficient memory) are required to be detected, but
conditions caused by an erroneously coded application (such as
failing to provide adequate synchronization to prevent a mutex
from being deleted while in use) are specified to result in
undefined behavior.
A wide range of implementations is thus made possible. For
example, an implementation intended for application debugging may
implement all of the error checks, but an implementation running
a single, provably correct application under very tight
performance constraints in an embedded computer might implement
minimal checks. An implementation might even be provided in two
versions, similar to the options that compilers provide: a full-
checking, but slower version; and a limited-checking, but faster
version. To forbid this optionality would be a disservice to
users.
By carefully limiting the use of ``undefined behavior'' only to
things that an erroneous (badly coded) application might do, and
by defining that resource-not-available errors are mandatory,
this volume of POSIX.1‐2017 ensures that a fully-conforming
application is portable across the full range of implementations,
while not forcing all implementations to add overhead to check
for numerous things that a correct program never does. When the
behavior is undefined, no error number is specified to be
returned on implementations that do detect the condition. This is
because undefined behavior means anything can happen, which
includes returning with any value (which might happen to be a
valid, but different, error number). However, since the error
number might be useful to application developers when diagnosing
problems during application development, a recommendation is made
in rationale that implementors should return a particular error
number if their implementation does detect the condition.
Why No Limits are Defined
Defining symbols for the maximum number of mutexes and condition
variables was considered but rejected because the number of these
objects may change dynamically. Furthermore, many implementations
place these objects into application memory; thus, there is no
explicit maximum.
Static Initializers for Mutexes and Condition Variables
Providing for static initialization of statically allocated
synchronization objects allows modules with private static
synchronization variables to avoid runtime initialization tests
and overhead. Furthermore, it simplifies the coding of self-
initializing modules. Such modules are common in C libraries,
where for various reasons the design calls for self-
initialization instead of requiring an explicit module
initialization function to be called. An example use of static
initialization follows.
Without static initialization, a self-initializing routine foo()
might look as follows:
static pthread_once_t foo_once = PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT;
static pthread_mutex_t foo_mutex;
void foo_init()
{
pthread_mutex_init(&foo_mutex, NULL);
}
void foo()
{
pthread_once(&foo_once, foo_init);
pthread_mutex_lock(&foo_mutex);
/* Do work. */
pthread_mutex_unlock(&foo_mutex);
}
With static initialization, the same routine could be coded as
follows:
static pthread_mutex_t foo_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
void foo()
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&foo_mutex);
/* Do work. */
pthread_mutex_unlock(&foo_mutex);
}
Note that the static initialization both eliminates the need for
the initialization test inside pthread_once() and the fetch of
&foo_mutex to learn the address to be passed to
pthread_mutex_lock() or pthread_mutex_unlock().
Thus, the C code written to initialize static objects is simpler
on all systems and is also faster on a large class of systems;
those where the (entire) synchronization object can be stored in
application memory.
Yet the locking performance question is likely to be raised for
machines that require mutexes to be allocated out of special
memory. Such machines actually have to have mutexes and possibly
condition variables contain pointers to the actual hardware
locks. For static initialization to work on such machines,
pthread_mutex_lock() also has to test whether or not the pointer
to the actual lock has been allocated. If it has not,
pthread_mutex_lock() has to initialize it before use. The
reservation of such resources can be made when the program is
loaded, and hence return codes have not been added to mutex
locking and condition variable waiting to indicate failure to
complete initialization.
This runtime test in pthread_mutex_lock() would at first seem to
be extra work; an extra test is required to see whether the
pointer has been initialized. On most machines this would
actually be implemented as a fetch of the pointer, testing the
pointer against zero, and then using the pointer if it has
already been initialized. While the test might seem to add extra
work, the extra effort of testing a register is usually
negligible since no extra memory references are actually done. As
more and more machines provide caches, the real expenses are
memory references, not instructions executed.
Alternatively, depending on the machine architecture, there are
often ways to eliminate all overhead in the most important case:
on the lock operations that occur after the lock has been
initialized. This can be done by shifting more overhead to the
less frequent operation: initialization. Since out-of-line mutex
allocation also means that an address has to be dereferenced to
find the actual lock, one technique that is widely applicable is
to have static initialization store a bogus value for that
address; in particular, an address that causes a machine fault to
occur. When such a fault occurs upon the first attempt to lock
such a mutex, validity checks can be done, and then the correct
address for the actual lock can be filled in. Subsequent lock
operations incur no extra overhead since they do not ``fault''.
This is merely one technique that can be used to support static
initialization, while not adversely affecting the performance of
lock acquisition. No doubt there are other techniques that are
highly machine-dependent.
The locking overhead for machines doing out-of-line mutex
allocation is thus similar for modules being implicitly
initialized, where it is improved for those doing mutex
allocation entirely inline. The inline case is thus made much
faster, and the out-of-line case is not significantly worse.
Besides the issue of locking performance for such machines, a
concern is raised that it is possible that threads would
serialize contending for initialization locks when attempting to
finish initializing statically allocated mutexes. (Such finishing
would typically involve taking an internal lock, allocating a
structure, storing a pointer to the structure in the mutex, and
releasing the internal lock.) First, many implementations would
reduce such serialization by hashing on the mutex address.
Second, such serialization can only occur a bounded number of
times. In particular, it can happen at most as many times as
there are statically allocated synchronization objects.
Dynamically allocated objects would still be initialized via
pthread_mutex_init() or pthread_cond_init().
Finally, if none of the above optimization techniques for out-of-
line allocation yields sufficient performance for an application
on some implementation, the application can avoid static
initialization altogether by explicitly initializing all
synchronization objects with the corresponding pthread_*_init()
functions, which are supported by all implementations. An
implementation can also document the tradeoffs and advise which
initialization technique is more efficient for that particular
implementation.
Destroying Mutexes
A mutex can be destroyed immediately after it is unlocked.
However, since attempting to destroy a locked mutex, or a mutex
that another thread is attempting to lock, or a mutex that is
being used in a pthread_cond_timedwait() or pthread_cond_wait()
call by another thread, results in undefined behavior, care must
be taken to ensure that no other thread may be referencing the
mutex.
Robust Mutexes
Implementations are required to provide robust mutexes for
mutexes with the process-shared attribute set to
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED. Implementations are allowed, but not
required, to provide robust mutexes when the process-shared
attribute is set to PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE.
