Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6611125
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 25, 20262026-05-25T19:55:48+00:00 2026-05-25T19:55:48+00:00

In a past question, I asked about implementing pthread barriers without destruction races: How

  • 0

In a past question, I asked about implementing pthread barriers without destruction races:

How can barriers be destroyable as soon as pthread_barrier_wait returns?

and received from Michael Burr with a perfect solution for process-local barriers, but which fails for process-shared barriers. We later worked through some ideas, but never reached a satisfactory conclusion, and didn’t even begin to get into resource failure cases.

Is it possible on Linux to make a barrier that meets these conditions:

  • Process-shared (can be created in any shared memory).
  • Safe to unmap or destroy the barrier from any thread immediately after the barrier wait function returns.
  • Cannot fail due to resource allocation failure.

Michael’s attempt at solving the process-shared case (see the linked question) has the unfortunate property that some kind of system resource must be allocated at wait time, meaning the wait can fail. And it’s unclear what a caller could reasonably do when a barrier wait fails, since the whole point of the barrier is that it’s unsafe to proceed until the remaining N-1 threads have reached it…

A kernel-space solution might be the only way, but even that’s difficult due to the possibility of a signal interrupting the wait with no reliable way to resume it…

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-25T19:55:48+00:00Added an answer on May 25, 2026 at 7:55 pm

    After a long discussion with bdonlan on SO chat, I think I have a solution. Basically, we break the problem down into the two self-synchronized deallocation issues: the destroy operation and unmapping.

    Handling destruction is easy: Simply make the pthread_barrier_destroy function wait for all waiters to stop inspecting the barrier. This can be done by having a usage count in the barrier, atomically incremented/decremented on entry/exit to the wait function, and having the destroy function spin waiting for the count to reach zero. (It’s also possible to use a futex here, rather than just spinning, if you stick a waiter flag in the high bit of the usage count or similar.)

    Handling unmapping is also easy, but non-local: ensure that munmap or mmap with the MAP_FIXED flag cannot occur while barrier waiters are in the process of exiting, by adding locking to the syscall wrappers. This requires a specialized sort of reader-writer lock. The last waiter to reach the barrier should grab a read lock on the munmap rw-lock, which will be released when the final waiter exits (when decrementing the user count results in a count of 0). munmap and mmap can be made reentrant (as some programs might expect, even though POSIX doesn’t require it) by making the writer lock recursive. Actually, a sort of lock where readers and writers are entirely symmetric, and each type of lock excludes the opposite type of lock but not the same type, should work best.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I know questions about thumbnails have been asked in the past but I can't
I know this question was already asked in the past, but i am really
Earlier I asked a question about command-line parameters to automate processing of a file
I have asked a related question in the past and I know how to
This question was inspired by Jon Skeet's question here where he asked about people
I know that different versions of this question has been asked in the past,
Halo I'm sure this question has been asked many times in the past, but
This is a question I have asked myself many times in the past as
I recently asked a question here on Stack Overflow about how to cast my
In the past I had asked a few questions about how to create my

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.