pthread-win32扩展sem_post_multiple

Question

I am currently building a thin C++ wrapper around pthreads for in-house use. Windows as well as QNX are targeted and fortunately the pthreads-win32 ports seems to work very well, while QNX is conformant to POSIX for our practical purposes.

Now, while implementing semaphores, I hit the function

sem_post_multiple(sem_t*, int)

which is apparently only available on pthreads-win32 but is missing from QNX. As the name suggests the function is supposed to increment the semaphore by the count given as second argument. As far as I can tell the function is not part of neither POSIX 1b nor POSIX 1c.

Although there is currently no requirement for said function I am still wondering why pthreads-win32 provides the function and whether it might be of use. I could try to mimic it for QNX using similar to the following:

sem_post_multiple_qnx(sem_t* sem, int count)
{
   for(;count > 0; --count)
   {
       sem_post(sem);
   }
} 

What I am asking for are suggestion/advice on how to proceed. If consensus suggests to do implement the function for QNX I would also appreciate comments on whether the suggested code snipped is a viable solution.

Thanks in advance.

PS: I deliberately left out my fancy C++ class for clarity. For all folks suggesting boost to the rescue: it is not an option in my current project due to management reasons.

Answer 1

Your proposed implementation of sem_post_multiple doesn't play nicely with sem_getvalue , since sem_post_multiple is an atomic increase and therefore it's not possible for a "simultaneous" call to sem_getvalue to return any of the intermediate values.

Personally I'd want to leave them both out: trying to add fundamental synchronization operations to a system which lacks them is a mug's game, and your wrapper might soon cease to be "thin". So don't get into it unless you have code that uses sem_post_multiple , that you absolutely have to port.

Answer 2

In any case semaphores are an optional extension in POSIX. Eg OS X doesn't seem to implement them fully. So if you are concerned with portability, you'd have to provide wrappers of the functionalities you need, anyhow.

Your approach to emulate an atomic increment by iterated sem_post has certainly downsides.

• It might be performing badly, where usually sem_t are used in performance critical contexts.
• This operation would not be atomic. So confusing things might happen before you finish the loop.

I would stick to the just necessary, strictly POSIX conforming. Beware that sem_timedwait is yet another optional part of the semaphore option.

Answer 3

sem_post_multiple() is a non-standard helper function introduced by the win32-pthreads maintainers. Your implementation isn't the same as theirs because the multiple decrements aren't atomic. Whether or not this is a problem depends on the intended use. (Personally, I wouldn't try to implement this function unless/until the need arises.)

Answer 4

This is an interesting question. +1.

I agree with the current prevailing consensus here that it is probably not a good idea to implement that function. While your proposed implementation would probably be work just fine in most situations, there are definitely conditions in which the results could be dramatically different due to the non-atomicity. The following is one (extremely) contrived situation:

• Start thread A which calls sem_post_multiple( s, 10 )
• Thread B waiting on s is released. Thread B kills thread A.

In the above unfriendly scenario, the atomic version would have incremented the semaphore by 10. With non-atomic version, it may only be incremented once. This example is certainly not likely in the real world. For example, the killing of a thread is almost always a bad idea not to mention the fact that it could leave the semaphore object in an invalid state. The Win32 implementation could leave a mutex lock on the semaphore - see this for why .