From db171f2f9435b98f05f33fcbc0dcf0c5cc1cb917 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rpj <rpj>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:33:14 +0000
Subject: First pass of robust mutexes

---
 ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

(limited to 'ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines.c')

diff --git a/ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines.c b/ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines.c
index a583f18..8873f87 100644
--- a/ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines.c
+++ b/ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines.c
@@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines (pthread_t thread)
 
   if (thread.p != NULL)
     {
+      ptw32_mcs_local_node_t threadLock;
+      ptw32_mcs_local_node_t keyLock;
       int assocsRemaining;
       int iterations = 0;
       ptw32_thread_t * sp = (ptw32_thread_t *) thread.p;
@@ -83,7 +85,7 @@ ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines (pthread_t thread)
 	  assocsRemaining = 0;
 	  iterations++;
 
-	  (void) pthread_mutex_lock(&(sp->threadLock));
+	  ptw32_mcs_lock_acquire(&(sp->threadLock), &threadLock);
 	  /*
 	   * The pointer to the next assoc is stored in the thread struct so that
 	   * the assoc destructor in pthread_key_delete can adjust it
@@ -93,7 +95,7 @@ ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines (pthread_t thread)
 	   * before us.
 	   */
 	  sp->nextAssoc = sp->keys;
-	  (void) pthread_mutex_unlock(&(sp->threadLock));
+	  ptw32_mcs_lock_release(&threadLock);
 
 	  for (;;)
 	    {
@@ -106,12 +108,12 @@ ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines (pthread_t thread)
 	       * both assoc guards, but in the reverse order to our convention,
 	       * so we must be careful to avoid deadlock.
 	       */
-	      (void) pthread_mutex_lock(&(sp->threadLock));
+	      ptw32_mcs_lock_acquire(&(sp->threadLock), &threadLock);
 
 	      if ((assoc = (ThreadKeyAssoc *)sp->nextAssoc) == NULL)
 		{
 		  /* Finished */
-		  pthread_mutex_unlock(&(sp->threadLock));
+		  ptw32_mcs_lock_release(&threadLock);
 		  break;
 		}
 	      else
@@ -126,10 +128,10 @@ ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines (pthread_t thread)
 		   * If we fail, we need to relinquish the first lock and the
 		   * processor and then try to acquire them all again.
 		   */
-		  if (pthread_mutex_trylock(&(assoc->key->keyLock)) == EBUSY)
+		  if (ptw32_mcs_lock_try_acquire(&(assoc->key->keyLock), &keyLock) == EBUSY)
 		    {
-		      pthread_mutex_unlock(&(sp->threadLock));
-		      Sleep(1); // Ugly but necessary to avoid priority effects.
+		      ptw32_mcs_lock_release(&threadLock);
+		      Sleep(0);
 		      /*
 		       * Go around again.
 		       * If pthread_key_delete has removed this assoc in the meantime,
@@ -165,8 +167,8 @@ ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines (pthread_t thread)
 		   * pthread_setspecific can also be run from destructors and
 		   * also needs to be able to access the assocs.
 		   */
-		  (void) pthread_mutex_unlock(&(sp->threadLock));
-		  (void) pthread_mutex_unlock(&(k->keyLock));
+		  ptw32_mcs_lock_release(&threadLock);
+		  ptw32_mcs_lock_release(&keyLock);
 
 		  assocsRemaining++;
 
@@ -210,8 +212,8 @@ ptw32_callUserDestroyRoutines (pthread_t thread)
 		   * and reclaim it's memory resources.
 		   */
 		  ptw32_tkAssocDestroy (assoc);
-		  (void) pthread_mutex_unlock(&(sp->threadLock));
-		  (void) pthread_mutex_unlock(&(k->keyLock));
+		  ptw32_mcs_lock_release(&threadLock);
+		  ptw32_mcs_lock_release(&keyLock);
 		}
 	    }
 	}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3