| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Remove lock wrappers in `sys_common`
This moves the lazy allocation to `sys` (SGX and UNIX). While this leads to a bit more verbosity, it will simplify future improvements by making room in `sys_common` for platform-independent implementations.
This also removes the condvar check on SGX as it is not necessary for soundness and will be removed anyway once mutex has been made movable.
For simplicity's sake, `libunwind` also uses lazy allocation now on SGX. This will require an update to the C definitions before merging this (CC `@raoulstrackx).`
r? `@m-ou-se`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consistently write `RwLock`
Before the documentation sometimes referred to an "rwlock" and sometimes to "`RwLock`".
|
|
std: use futex in `Once`
Now that we have efficient locks, let's optimize the rest of `sync` as well. This PR adds a futex-based implementation for `Once`, which drastically simplifies the implementation compared to the generic version, which is provided as fallback for platforms without futex (Windows only supports them on newer versions, so it uses the fallback for now).
Instead of storing a linked list of waiters, the new implementation adds another state (`QUEUED`), which is set when there are waiting threads. These now use `futex_wait` on that state and are woken by the running thread when it finishes and notices the `QUEUED` state, thereby avoiding unnecessary calls to `futex_wake_all`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before the documentation sometimes referred to an "rwlock" and sometimes to "`RwLock`".
|
|
Make `ReentrantMutex` movable and `const`
As `MovableMutex` is now `const`, it can be used to simplify the implementation and interface of the internal reentrant mutex type. Consequently, the standard error stream does not need to be wrapped in `OnceLock` and `OnceLock::get_or_init_pin()` can be removed.
|
|
|
|
Uplift the `let_underscore` lints from clippy into rustc.
This PR resolves #97241.
This PR adds three lints from clippy--`let_underscore_drop`, `let_underscore_lock`, and `let_underscore_must_use`, which are meant to capture likely-incorrect uses of `let _ = ...` bindings (in particular, doing this on a type with a non-trivial `Drop` causes the `Drop` to occur immediately, instead of at the end of the scope. For a type like `MutexGuard`, this effectively releases the lock immediately, which is almost certainly the wrong behavior)
In porting the lints from clippy I had to copy over a bunch of utility functions from `clippy_util` that these lints also relied upon. Is that the right approach?
Note that I've set the `must_use` and `drop` lints to Allow by default and set `lock` to Deny by default (this matches the same settings that clippy has). In talking with `@estebank` he informed me to do a Crater run (I am not sure what type of Crater run to request here--I think it's just "check only"?)
On the linked issue, there's some discussion about using `must_use` and `Drop` together as a heuristic for when to warn--I did not implement this yet.
r? `@estebank`
|
|
|
|
[core] add `Exclusive` to sync
(discussed here: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Adding.20.60SyncWrapper.60.20to.20std)
`Exclusive` is a wrapper that exclusively allows mutable access to the inner value if you have exclusive access to the wrapper. It acts like a compile time mutex, and hold an unconditional `Sync` implementation.
## Justification for inclusion into std
- This wrapper unblocks actual problems:
- The example that I hit was a vector of `futures::future::BoxFuture`'s causing a central struct in a script to be non-`Sync`. To work around it, you either write really difficult code, or wrap the futures in a needless mutex.
- Easy to maintain: this struct is as simple as a wrapper can get, and its `Sync` implementation has very clear reasoning
- Fills a gap: `&/&mut` are to `RwLock` as `Exclusive` is to `Mutex`
## Public Api
```rust
// core::sync
#[derive(Default)]
struct Exclusive<T: ?Sized> { ... }
impl<T: ?Sized> Sync for Exclusive {}
impl<T> Exclusive<T> {
pub const fn new(t: T) -> Self;
pub const fn into_inner(self) -> T;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> Exclusive<T> {
pub const fn get_mut(&mut self) -> &mut T;
pub const fn get_pin_mut(Pin<&mut self>) -> Pin<&mut T>;
pub const fn from_mut(&mut T) -> &mut Exclusive<T>;
pub const fn from_pin_mut(Pin<&mut T>) -> Pin<&mut Exclusive<T>>;
}
impl<T: Future> Future for Exclusive { ... }
impl<T> From<T> for Exclusive<T> { ... }
impl<T: ?Sized> Debug for Exclusive { ... }
```
## Naming
This is a big bikeshed, but I felt that `Exclusive` captured its general purpose quite well.
## Stability and location
As this is so simple, it can be in `core`. I feel that it can be stabilized quite soon after it is merged, if the libs teams feels its reasonable to add. Also, I don't really know how unstable feature work in std/core's codebases, so I might need help fixing them
## Tips for review
The docs probably are the thing that needs to be reviewed! I tried my best, but I'm sure people have more experience than me writing docs for `Core`
### Implementation:
The API is mostly pulled from https://docs.rs/sync_wrapper/latest/sync_wrapper/struct.SyncWrapper.html (which is apache 2.0 licenesed), and the implementation is trivial:
- its an unsafe justification for pinning
- its an unsafe justification for the `Sync` impl (mostly reasoned about by ````@danielhenrymantilla```` here: https://github.com/Actyx/sync_wrapper/pull/2)
- and forwarding impls, starting with derivable ones and `Future`
|
|
Make RwLockReadGuard covariant
Hi, first time contributor here, if anything is not as expected, please let me know.
`RwLockReadGoard`'s type constructor is invariant. Since it behaves like a smart pointer to an immutable reference, there is no reason that it should not be covariant. Take e.g.
```
fn test_read_guard_covariance() {
fn do_stuff<'a>(_: RwLockReadGuard<'_, &'a i32>, _: &'a i32) {}
let j: i32 = 5;
let lock = RwLock::new(&j);
{
let i = 6;
do_stuff(lock.read().unwrap(), &i);
}
drop(lock);
}
```
where the compiler complains that &i doesn't live long enough. If `RwLockReadGuard` is covariant, then the above code is accepted because the lifetime can be shorter than `'a`.
In order for `RwLockReadGuard` to be covariant, it can't contain a full reference to the `RwLock`, which can never be covariant (because it exposes a mutable reference to the underlying data structure). By reducing the data structure to the required pieces of `RwLock`, the rest falls in place.
If there is a better way to do a test that tests successful compilation, please let me know.
Fixes #80392
|
|
|
|
Make {Mutex, Condvar, RwLock}::new() const.
This makes it possible to have `static M: Mutex<_> = Mutex::new(..);` 🎉
Our implementations [on Linux](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95035), [on Windows](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77380), and various BSDs and some tier 3 platforms have already been using a non-allocating const-constructible implementation. As of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97647, the remaining platforms (most notably macOS) now have a const-constructible implementation as well. This means we can finally make these functions publicly const.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
once cell renamings
This PR does the renamings proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74465#issuecomment-1153703128
- Move/rename `lazy::{OnceCell, Lazy}` to `cell::{OnceCell, LazyCell}`
- Move/rename `lazy::{SyncOnceCell, SyncLazy}` to `sync::{OnceLock, LazyLock}`
(I used `Lazy...` instead of `...Lazy` as it seems to be more consistent, easier to pronounce, etc)
```@rustbot``` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
|
|
|
|
`Mutex::lock()` and `RwLock::write()` are poison-guarded against panics,
in that they set the poison flag if a panic occurs while they're locked.
But if we're already in a panic (`thread::panicking()`), they leave the
poison flag alone.
That check is a bit of a waste for methods that never set the poison
flag though, namely `get_mut()`, `into_inner()`, and `RwLock::read()`.
These use-cases are now split to avoid that unnecessary call.
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Weiyi Wang <wwylele@gmail.com>
|
|
The docs were saying something about "statically initializing" the
mutex, and it's not clear what this means. Remove that part to avoid
confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to add the diagnostic to the actual types in `std` earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add functions to un-poison Mutex and RwLock
See discussion at https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/unpoisoning-a-mutex/16521/3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove `#[rustc_deprecated]`
This removes `#[rustc_deprecated]` and introduces diagnostics to help users to the right direction (that being `#[deprecated]`). All uses of `#[rustc_deprecated]` have been converted. CI is expected to fail initially; this requires #95958, which includes converting `stdarch`.
I plan on following up in a short while (maybe a bootstrap cycle?) removing the diagnostics, as they're only intended to be short-term.
|
|
|
|
We don't guarantee this panics. On most platforms it doesn't anymore.
|
|
|
|
See discussion at https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/unpoisoning-a-mutex/16521/3
|
|
|
|
Since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95340 landed, Miri with
-Zmiri-check-number-validity produces an error on the test suites of
some crates which implement concurrency tools, because it seems like
such crates tend to use std::sync::mpsc in their tests. This fixes the
problem by storing pointer bytes in a pointer.
|
|
|
|
Replace Linux Mutex and Condvar with futex based ones.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93740
|
|
Some things like the unwinders and system APIs are not fully conformant,
this only covers a lot of low-hanging fruit.
|
|
|
