[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] Implements a HostThread class.

[Zachary Turner]

HostThread is going to replace thread_t in the sense that you should be
able to use HostThread for everything.  But since thread_t is already
defined correctly on all platforms, I was just goign to have HostThreadBase
store the thread_t.  But I could just as easily have the various
implementations store the explicit type (HANDLE, pthread_t, etc) directly.

I think it's useful to be able to have an empty HostThread object, for the
case where we want HostThread to represent a thread we didn't start.
 Examples include the case where we have an InferiorThread class which
stores a HostThread as one of its members, or when you run a "thread list"
command and it builds a list of existing threads for some process.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:58 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:

> This was probably lacking because the only threads really managed by the
> hosts' thread_t were ones we created, so you'd get your hands on a thread_t
> by Host::ThreadCreate'ing it, then you could manipulate it with Join, etc.
> We didn't ever need to use thread_t for threads that already existed in
> lldb.
>
> I don't quite understand:
>
> "HostThreadBase is going to store a thread_t"
>
> I thought to some extent HostThreadBase was going to replace thread_t.
> Then HostThreadPosix would store a ptid_t as a matter of its implementation
> (and presumably a Handle on Windows?), but I'm not sure why we would need
> to expose that.  If you wanted to get all the threads in lldb, that seems
> to me something you'd ask the Host and it would return a list of
> HostThreadBase's.
>
> BTW, in this context I wonder if we need Create, or if that should be a
> constructor?  Would there be any use for an empty HostThread object that
> you planned start up as a worker later, or would it be better to have a
> NULL HostBase* (or empty unique pointer) and then construct into it?
>
> Jim
>
> > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I meant a constructor that takes a tid_t seems useful.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
> > BTW, one thing I was stuck on in my original patch.  It seems I can go
> from a thread_t to a tid_t on MacOSX via pthread_threadid_np.  How do I go
> the other direction?  HostThreadBase is going to store a thread_t.  But a
> method that returns a tid_t seems generally useful.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:34 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll proceed as discussed in the earlier thread where I listed the
> interfaces, minus the Suspend / Resume.  I'll keep an eye on this thread
> though in case anything else comes up.  Thanks for trudging through this
> with me!
> >
> > Sounds great!  More thanks always go to the fellow actually doing the
> work!
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:31 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, that sounds right.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thinking about it some more, removing SuspendThread and ResumeThread
> seems reasonable.  Functionality beyond what is required for dealing with
> own-process threads can be in a different abstraction which is backed by a
> HostThread through containment.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > > > Yes, I think there's enough reason to expect we'll use HostThread in
> ways the C++11 standards committee didn't think of that keeping a wrapper
> is useful.  Also, Hosts mostly have to have fairly good thread libraries
> now-a-days, but they don't necessarily have to have good C++11 std::thread
> implementations, so insulating ourselves here is probably not a bad idea.
> OTOH, Greg has been making rumblings about backing the Host thread
> functionality by std::thread's ever since we decided to require C++11.
> > > >
> > > > Among other teenie reasons for keeping the wrapper, std::thread's
> don't have "set name".  That may seem trivial, but we get crash logs from
> Xcode where Xcode is running many lldb Debugger sessions simultaneously
> (the Swift Playground feature is one among many causes of this.)  These
> CrashLogs were really hard to read till we got both Xcode and lldb to name
> all the threads that belong to a given process with the PID of the
> process.  I would not like to lose this feature...
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, disregard my last message.  I agree with you, the things
> you do when you manipulate threads in a debuggee are different.  So for
> that you have some other abstraction, but that other abstraction can still
> be *backed by* a HostThread
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Zachary Turner <
> zturner at google.com> wrote:
> > > > > If that's the case, is there any reason to not just use
> std::thread directly?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:51 AM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > > > > So thread_t says:
> > > > >
> > > > > //  lldb::thread_t          The native thread type for spawned
> threads on the system
> > > > >
> > > > > I am pretty sure that was only ever meant to be used for threads
> inside of the running lldb.  It seems to me that it will make things very
> confusing to try to use it for random threads in some other process.  The
> way you manipulate your own threads, and the things you can do with them,
> are very different from the way you manipulate threads in the debugee, and
> what is desirable.  Unless there's some compelling reason that I don't see
> right now, I'd like to keep these two concepts separate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mentioned this a few times earlier, but admittedly the thread
> has grown pretty long.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HostThread is a replacement for thread_t.  Anywhere you use a
> thread_t, you can use a HostThread.  This applies obviously to threads
> inside the debugger itself, but also to any other threads on the machine.
> In the case of debugging process P locally, for example, it might be used
> when viewing or manipulating the threads of P.  Even in remote debuggign
> scenarios, the debugserver might use a HostThread to manipulate threads in
> the inferior.  There's already a method in Host called FindProcessThreads,
> for example.  Instead of returning a list of thread ids, it could return a
> list of HostThreads.  The size of the class should not be much (if any)
> larger than an lldb::thread_t, it just has extra methods for convenience.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:28 AM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > > > > > One thing I am unclear about, I had thought that HostThread in
> particular would be used for threads IN lldb, but not for handling threads
> in a program lldb is debugging when on that Host.  So for instance, Suspend
> & Resume don't seem necessary or desirable when dealing with threads lldb
> is using for implementing lldb, and Launch is possible but quite tricky and
> not required for remote threads on the same Host.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the actual story here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Zachary Turner <
> zturner at google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think about this?  I implement the abstract base
> class.  I'll give it the following methods:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pure virtual:
> > > > > > > * Launch
> > > > > > > * Join
> > > > > > > * Cancel
> > > > > > > * GetState (enumerated value : invalid, running, exited,
> suspended, cancelled)
> > > > > > > * Suspend
> > > > > > > * Resume
> > > > > > > * GetThreadResult
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Virtual with default implementations:
> > > > > > > * GetName
> > > > > > > * SetName
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cancel will return an lldb::Error if cancellation is not
> supported (for example because we're on windows and we don't own the thread
> routine).  If you think of any other methods that should go here, let me
> know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Initial patch will go in like this, with no code yet updated
> to use the new HostThread.  In a subsequent patch, I will change thread_t's
> to HostThreads, updating code as necessary.  We can evaluate the decision
> about the typedef vs. the base class at this point, when we see what (if
> any) impact this will have on whether specific methods will be accessed
> from generic code.  At this point, if there's still disagreement, I can
> even make two separate patches - one that does it each way, so that we can
> compare actual code that uses both methods.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:01 AM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Zachary Turner <
> zturner at google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:54 AM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SystemLog
> > > > > > > > > ThreadDetach
> > > > > > > > > ThreadCancel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There must be some way on Windows to tell a thread to exit
> at the next cancellation point?  Can you really not cancel a worker
> thread's operation?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not an arbitrary thread, no.  You can forcefully terminate
> it (with caveats, and it may not work and/or have unexpected behavior, so
> it is strongly discouraged), but generally if you want to gracefully cancel
> a thread, the thread has to have specific code in its run loop to make that
> possible.  So it might work for threads that we create inside the lldb
> process, since we control the thread routine, but it wouldn't be meaningful
> for threads in other process.  The reason for this discrepancy is that
> there is no concept of signals on Windows, which I assume is how thread
> cancellation is implemented behind the scenes on posix platforms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think thread cancellation requires signals for same
> process thread cancellation for pthreads, but it does use kernel support.
> The system defines "cancellation points" - e.g. select, read, etc. where a
> thread is likely to sit waiting, and pthread_cancel just marks the target
> thread so that if it is in a cancellation routine (they're pretty much all
> kernel traps) it gets killed off, otherwise the request is postponed till
> the thread enters a cancellation point and then it gets killed.   I don't
> think you would need signals for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But it is something we need to do for all our ports, since we
> rely on this for shutting down the Process worker threads cleanly.  Since
> we only really care about canceling threads we create, I think it would be
> okay for ThreadCancel to be a no-op for other threads.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > GetAuxvData
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before my original HostInfo refactor, it also had these
> methods:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > GetUserID
> > > > > > > > > GetGroupID
> > > > > > > > > GetEffectiveUserID
> > > > > > > > > GetEffectiveGroupID
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Those methods were just as accessible to anyone writing
> generic code.  They are *less* accessible now, because they are on
> HostInfoPosix.  And this happened without needing to introduce any platform
> specific pre-processor defines into generic LLDB.  There was maybe one
> exception, which Jason Molenda pointed out earlier, which was the
> GetOSBuildString.  And that only happened because GetOSBuildString is not a
> generic concept!   The design worked exactly as intended, exposing a place
> where code that was intended to be generic actually wasn't as generic as it
> thought it was.  Everywhere else, the GetUserID, GetGroupID, etc methods
> were only being called from specific code (which is how it should work),
> but after my change this is now enforced by the compiler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But again, if I'm writing code it seems like a real pain to
> have to answer the question "is this an interface I can use in generic
> code" be:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For now you can if it exists in all the HostThreadXXX.h
> files, but of course if somebody introduces another platform and decides
> that they don't want to implement this function then you can't use it
> anymore and have to put
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #if defined
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > guards around the usage.  Instead, we should look at the
> host interfaces and say there are three classes of things:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) Things you must implement in order to port lldb to a host
> > > > > > > >     These should be pure virtual methods in HostFeature.h
> > > > > > > > 2) Things you can optionally implement, but there's a
> reasonable "couldn't do that" fallback
> > > > > > > >     These should be virtual methods in HostFeature.h
> > > > > > > > 3) Things that are purely host specific.
> > > > > > > >     These should be methods in HostFeatureMyHost.h, and can
> only be used in HostOtherFeatureMyHost.h, but never in generic code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This would make the job of folks working in generic code
> clear, and also make it obvious to the next porter (OpenVMS, anyone?) what
> they have to do.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm ok with doing all of this.  I'm all for having the
> compiler catch things for you, and if one of the things it can catch for
> you is "you need to implement this method" then that's great.  That said,
> I'm still rather fond of the idea of typedefing HostFeature to
> HostFeatureMyHost and then having everyone use HostFeature.  No matter if
> you do it or don't, it's still equally easy to write specific code from
> generic code.  You could just do this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #if defined(__APPLE__)
> > > > > > > > ((HostFeatureMacOSX&)feature).AppleSpecificMethod();
> > > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > as opposed to this
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #if defined(__APPLE__)
> > > > > > > > feature.AppleSpecificMethod();
> > > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My feeling about this is since you'd actually have to do:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #if defined(__APPLE__)
> > > > > > > #include "lldb/Host/windows/HostFeatureMacOSX.h"
> > > > > > > (((HostFeatureMacOSX&)feature).AppleSpecificMethod();
> > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope at that point you'd know you've gone off the
> reservation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In both cases though, the person has felt strongly enough
> about it to put it in a pre-processor guard, so the decision has already
> been made.  And the second method has the benefit that when you're writing
> specific code (which I anticipate to write alot of for Windows), you just
> always have the type you need.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20140829/9c0af5f5/attachment.html>