| [ << ] | [ >> ] | [Top] | [Contents] | [Index] | [ ? ] |
This chapter presents a sample assignment and a filled-in design document for one possible implementation. Its purpose is to give you an idea of what we expect to see in your own design documents.
Implement thread_join().
Incidentally, the argument is a thread id, instead of a thread pointer,
because a thread pointer is not unique over time. That is, when a
thread dies, its memory may be, whether immediately or much later,
reused for another thread. If thread A over time had two children
B and C that were stored at the same address, then
thread_join(B) and thread_join(C) would be
ambiguous.
A thread may only join its immediate children. Calling
thread_join() on a thread that is not the caller's child should
cause the caller to return immediately. Children are not "inherited,"
that is, if A has child B and B has child C,
then A always returns immediately should it try to join C,
even if B is dead.
A thread need not ever be joined. Your solution should properly free
all of a thread's resources, including its struct thread,
whether it is ever joined or not, and regardless of whether the child
exits before or after its parent. That is, a thread should be freed
exactly once in all cases.
Joining a given thread is idempotent. That is, joining a thread multiple times is equivalent to joining it once, because it has already exited at the time of the later joins. Thus, joins on a given thread after the first should return immediately.
You must handle all the ways a join can occur: nested joins (A joins B, then B joins C), multiple joins (A joins B, then A joins C), and so on.
+-----------------+
| OS |
| SAMPLE PROJECT |
| DESIGN DOCUMENT |
+-----------------+
---- GROUP ----
Ben Pfaff <blp@stanford.edu>
---- PRELIMINARIES ----
>> If you have any preliminary comments on your submission, notes for
>> the TAs, or extra credit, please give them here.
(This is a sample design document.)
>> Please cite any offline or online sources you consulted while
>> preparing your submission, other than the Pintos documentation,
>> course text, and lecture notes.
None.
JOIN
====
---- DATA STRUCTURES ----
>> Copy here the declaration of each new or changed `struct' or `struct'
>> member, global or static variable, `typedef', or enumeration.
>> Identify the purpose of each in 25 words or less.
A "latch" is a new synchronization primitive. Acquires block
until the first release. Afterward, all ongoing and future
acquires pass immediately.
/* Latch. */
struct latch
{
bool released; /* Released yet? */
struct lock monitor_lock; /* Monitor lock. */
struct condition rel_cond; /* Signaled when released. */
};
Added to struct thread:
/* Members for implementing thread_join(). */
struct latch ready_to_die; /* Release when thread about to die. */
struct semaphore can_die; /* Up when thread allowed to die. */
struct list children; /* List of child threads. */
list_elem children_elem; /* Element of `children' list. */
---- ALGORITHMS ----
>> Briefly describe your implementation of thread_join() and how it
>> interacts with thread termination.
thread_join() finds the joined child on the thread's list of
children and waits for the child to exit by acquiring the child's
ready_to_die latch. When thread_exit() is called, the thread
releases its ready_to_die latch, allowing the parent to continue.
---- SYNCHRONIZATION ----
>> Consider parent thread P with child thread C. How do you ensure
>> proper synchronization and avoid race conditions when P calls wait(C)
>> before C exits? After C exits? How do you ensure that all resources
>> are freed in each case? How about when P terminates without waiting,
>> before C exits? After C exits? Are there any special cases?
C waits in thread_exit() for P to die before it finishes its own
exit, using the can_die semaphore "down"ed by C and "up"ed by P as
it exits. Regardless of whether whether C has terminated, there
is no race on wait(C), because C waits for P's permission before
it frees itself.
Regardless of whether P waits for C, P still "up"s C's can_die
semaphore when P dies, so C will always be freed. (However,
freeing C's resources is delayed until P's death.)
The initial thread is a special case because it has no parent to
wait for it or to "up" its can_die semaphore. Therefore, its
can_die semaphore is initialized to 1.
---- RATIONALE ----
>> Critique your design, pointing out advantages and disadvantages in
>> your design choices.
This design has the advantage of simplicity. Encapsulating most
of the synchronization logic into a new "latch" structure
abstracts what little complexity there is into a separate layer,
making the design easier to reason about. Also, all the new data
members are in `struct thread', with no need for any extra dynamic
allocation, etc., that would require extra management code.
On the other hand, this design is wasteful in that a child thread
cannot free itself before its parent has terminated. A parent
thread that creates a large number of short-lived child threads
could unnecessarily exhaust kernel memory. This is probably
acceptable for implementing kernel threads, but it may be a bad
idea for use with user processes because of the larger number of
resources that user processes tend to own.
|
| [ << ] | [ >> ] | [Top] | [Contents] | [Index] | [ ? ] |