Thread starvation and resource saturation in atomicity functions?

[David Daney]

Chad Attermann wrote:
> 
> Hello all.  Late last year I posted a couple of questions about 
> multi-threaded application hangs in Solaris 10 for x86 platforms, and 
> about thread-safety of std::basic_string in general.  This was an 
> attempt to solve persistent problems I have been experiencing with my 
> application hanging due to CPU utilization shooting to 100%, with the 
> __gnu_cxx::__exchange_and_add function frequently making appearances at 
> the top of the stack trace of several threads.
> 
> I believe I have made a break-through recently and wanted to solicit the 
> opinion of some experts on this.  I seem to have narrowed the problem 
> down to running my application as root versus an unprivileged user, and 
> further isolated the suspected cause to varying thread priorities in my 
> application. I have theorized that spin-locks in gcc, particularly in 
> the atomicity __gnu_cxx::__exchange_and_add function, are causing higher 
> priority threads to consume all available cpu cycles while spinning 
> indefinitely waiting for a lower priority thread that holds the lock.  
> Now I am already aware that messing with thread priorities is dangerous 
> and often an excercise in futility, but I am surprised that something so 
> elemental as an atomic test-and-set operation that may be used 
> extensively throughout gcc could possibly be the culprit for all of the 
> trouble I have been experiencing.
> 
> More than anything I'm hoping for a sanity check on this, even if it's 
> just to confirm what may be obvious to others; that modifying thread 
> priorities is strictly off-limits except in extreme circumstances with 
> careful control over what operations are performed.  Or perhaps there's 
> another solution that has eluded my searches, maybe a bug fix or some 
> way of avoiding such spin-locks in gcc making varying thread-priorities 
> viable and safe.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any insight, and at the very least I hope that 
> this will serve as a warning to others who might find themselves in the 
> same situation.
> 

I wonder if you are seeing either priority inversion or a deadlock.

As always, a small testcase would be useful.

David Daney