Add m-esr52 at 52.6.0

1 files changed, 448 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc b/ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b0a3df5fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ipc/chromium/src/base/condition_variable_win.cc
@@ -0,0 +1,448 @@
+/* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 8; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*- */
+/* vim: set ts=8 sts=2 et sw=2 tw=80: */
+// Copyright (c) 2006-2008 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+#include "base/condition_variable.h"
+
+#include <stack>
+
+#include "base/lock.h"
+#include "base/logging.h"
+#include "base/time.h"
+
+using base::TimeDelta;
+
+ConditionVariable::ConditionVariable(Lock* user_lock)
+  : user_lock_(*user_lock),
+    run_state_(RUNNING),
+    allocation_counter_(0),
+    recycling_list_size_(0) {
+  DCHECK(user_lock);
+}
+
+ConditionVariable::~ConditionVariable() {
+  AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_);
+  run_state_ = SHUTDOWN;  // Prevent any more waiting.
+
+  DCHECK_EQ(recycling_list_size_, allocation_counter_);
+  if (recycling_list_size_ != allocation_counter_) {  // Rare shutdown problem.
+    // There are threads of execution still in this->TimedWait() and yet the
+    // caller has instigated the destruction of this instance :-/.
+    // A common reason for such "overly hasty" destruction is that the caller
+    // was not willing to wait for all the threads to terminate.  Such hasty
+    // actions are a violation of our usage contract, but we'll give the
+    // waiting thread(s) one last chance to exit gracefully (prior to our
+    // destruction).
+    // Note: waiting_list_ *might* be empty, but recycling is still pending.
+    AutoUnlock auto_unlock(internal_lock_);
+    Broadcast();  // Make sure all waiting threads have been signaled.
+    Sleep(10);  // Give threads a chance to grab internal_lock_.
+    // All contained threads should be blocked on user_lock_ by now :-).
+  }  // Reacquire internal_lock_.
+
+  DCHECK_EQ(recycling_list_size_, allocation_counter_);
+}
+
+void ConditionVariable::Wait() {
+  // Default to "wait forever" timing, which means have to get a Signal()
+  // or Broadcast() to come out of this wait state.
+  TimedWait(TimeDelta::FromMilliseconds(INFINITE));
+}
+
+void ConditionVariable::TimedWait(const TimeDelta& max_time) {
+  Event* waiting_event;
+  HANDLE handle;
+  {
+    AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_);
+    if (RUNNING != run_state_) return;  // Destruction in progress.
+    waiting_event = GetEventForWaiting();
+    handle = waiting_event->handle();
+    DCHECK(handle);
+  }  // Release internal_lock.
+
+  {
+    AutoUnlock unlock(user_lock_);  // Release caller's lock
+    WaitForSingleObject(handle, static_cast<DWORD>(max_time.InMilliseconds()));
+    // Minimize spurious signal creation window by recycling asap.
+    AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_);
+    RecycleEvent(waiting_event);
+    // Release internal_lock_
+  }  // Reacquire callers lock to depth at entry.
+}
+
+// Broadcast() is guaranteed to signal all threads that were waiting (i.e., had
+// a cv_event internally allocated for them) before Broadcast() was called.
+void ConditionVariable::Broadcast() {
+  std::stack<HANDLE> handles;  // See FAQ-question-10.
+  {
+    AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_);
+    if (waiting_list_.IsEmpty())
+      return;
+    while (!waiting_list_.IsEmpty())
+      // This is not a leak from waiting_list_.  See FAQ-question 12.
+      handles.push(waiting_list_.PopBack()->handle());
+  }  // Release internal_lock_.
+  while (!handles.empty()) {
+    SetEvent(handles.top());
+    handles.pop();
+  }
+}
+
+// Signal() will select one of the waiting threads, and signal it (signal its
+// cv_event).  For better performance we signal the thread that went to sleep
+// most recently (LIFO).  If we want fairness, then we wake the thread that has
+// been sleeping the longest (FIFO).
+void ConditionVariable::Signal() {
+  HANDLE handle;
+  {
+    AutoLock auto_lock(internal_lock_);
+    if (waiting_list_.IsEmpty())
+      return;  // No one to signal.
+    // Only performance option should be used.
+    // This is not a leak from waiting_list.  See FAQ-question 12.
+     handle = waiting_list_.PopBack()->handle();  // LIFO.
+  }  // Release internal_lock_.
+  SetEvent(handle);
+}
+
+// GetEventForWaiting() provides a unique cv_event for any caller that needs to
+// wait.  This means that (worst case) we may over time create as many cv_event
+// objects as there are threads simultaneously using this instance's Wait()
+// functionality.
+ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::GetEventForWaiting() {
+  // We hold internal_lock, courtesy of Wait().
+  Event* cv_event;
+  if (0 == recycling_list_size_) {
+    DCHECK(recycling_list_.IsEmpty());
+    cv_event = new Event();
+    cv_event->InitListElement();
+    allocation_counter_++;
+    // CHECK_NE is not defined in our codebase, so we have to use CHECK
+    CHECK(cv_event->handle());
+  } else {
+    cv_event = recycling_list_.PopFront();
+    recycling_list_size_--;
+  }
+  waiting_list_.PushBack(cv_event);
+  return cv_event;
+}
+
+// RecycleEvent() takes a cv_event that was previously used for Wait()ing, and
+// recycles it for use in future Wait() calls for this or other threads.
+// Note that there is a tiny chance that the cv_event is still signaled when we
+// obtain it, and that can cause spurious signals (if/when we re-use the
+// cv_event), but such is quite rare (see FAQ-question-5).
+void ConditionVariable::RecycleEvent(Event* used_event) {
+  // We hold internal_lock, courtesy of Wait().
+  // If the cv_event timed out, then it is necessary to remove it from
+  // waiting_list_.  If it was selected by Broadcast() or Signal(), then it is
+  // already gone.
+  used_event->Extract();  // Possibly redundant
+  recycling_list_.PushBack(used_event);
+  recycling_list_size_++;
+}
+//------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// The next section provides the implementation for the private Event class.
+//------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+// Event provides a doubly-linked-list of events for use exclusively by the
+// ConditionVariable class.
+
+// This custom container was crafted because no simple combination of STL
+// classes appeared to support the functionality required.  The specific
+// unusual requirement for a linked-list-class is support for the Extract()
+// method, which can remove an element from a list, potentially for insertion
+// into a second list.  Most critically, the Extract() method is idempotent,
+// turning the indicated element into an extracted singleton whether it was
+// contained in a list or not.  This functionality allows one (or more) of
+// threads to do the extraction.  The iterator that identifies this extractable
+// element (in this case, a pointer to the list element) can be used after
+// arbitrary manipulation of the (possibly) enclosing list container.  In
+// general, STL containers do not provide iterators that can be used across
+// modifications (insertions/extractions) of the enclosing containers, and
+// certainly don't provide iterators that can be used if the identified
+// element is *deleted* (removed) from the container.
+
+// It is possible to use multiple redundant containers, such as an STL list,
+// and an STL map, to achieve similar container semantics.  This container has
+// only O(1) methods, while the corresponding (multiple) STL container approach
+// would have more complex O(log(N)) methods (yeah... N isn't that large).
+// Multiple containers also makes correctness more difficult to assert, as
+// data is redundantly stored and maintained, which is generally evil.
+
+ConditionVariable::Event::Event() : handle_(0) {
+  next_ = prev_ = this;  // Self referencing circular.
+}
+
+ConditionVariable::Event::~Event() {
+  if (0 == handle_) {
+    // This is the list holder
+    while (!IsEmpty()) {
+      Event* cv_event = PopFront();
+      DCHECK(cv_event->ValidateAsItem());
+      delete cv_event;
+    }
+  }
+  DCHECK(IsSingleton());
+  if (0 != handle_) {
+    int ret_val = CloseHandle(handle_);
+    DCHECK(ret_val);
+  }
+}
+
+// Change a container instance permanently into an element of a list.
+void ConditionVariable::Event::InitListElement() {
+  DCHECK(!handle_);
+  handle_ = CreateEvent(NULL, false, false, NULL);
+  CHECK(handle_);
+}
+
+// Methods for use on lists.
+bool ConditionVariable::Event::IsEmpty() const {
+  DCHECK(ValidateAsList());
+  return IsSingleton();
+}
+
+void ConditionVariable::Event::PushBack(Event* other) {
+  DCHECK(ValidateAsList());
+  DCHECK(other->ValidateAsItem());
+  DCHECK(other->IsSingleton());
+  // Prepare other for insertion.
+  other->prev_ = prev_;
+  other->next_ = this;
+  // Cut into list.
+  prev_->next_ = other;
+  prev_ = other;
+  DCHECK(ValidateAsDistinct(other));
+}
+
+ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::Event::PopFront() {
+  DCHECK(ValidateAsList());
+  DCHECK(!IsSingleton());
+  return next_->Extract();
+}
+
+ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::Event::PopBack() {
+  DCHECK(ValidateAsList());
+  DCHECK(!IsSingleton());
+  return prev_->Extract();
+}
+
+// Methods for use on list elements.
+// Accessor method.
+HANDLE ConditionVariable::Event::handle() const {
+  DCHECK(ValidateAsItem());
+  return handle_;
+}
+
+// Pull an element from a list (if it's in one).
+ConditionVariable::Event* ConditionVariable::Event::Extract() {
+  DCHECK(ValidateAsItem());
+  if (!IsSingleton()) {
+    // Stitch neighbors together.
+    next_->prev_ = prev_;
+    prev_->next_ = next_;
+    // Make extractee into a singleton.
+    prev_ = next_ = this;
+  }
+  DCHECK(IsSingleton());
+  return this;
+}
+
+// Method for use on a list element or on a list.
+bool ConditionVariable::Event::IsSingleton() const {
+  DCHECK(ValidateLinks());
+  return next_ == this;
+}
+
+// Provide pre/post conditions to validate correct manipulations.
+bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateAsDistinct(Event* other) const {
+  return ValidateLinks() && other->ValidateLinks() && (this != other);
+}
+
+bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateAsItem() const {
+  return (0 != handle_) && ValidateLinks();
+}
+
+bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateAsList() const {
+  return (0 == handle_) && ValidateLinks();
+}
+
+bool ConditionVariable::Event::ValidateLinks() const {
+  // Make sure both of our neighbors have links that point back to us.
+  // We don't do the O(n) check and traverse the whole loop, and instead only
+  // do a local check to (and returning from) our immediate neighbors.
+  return (next_->prev_ == this) && (prev_->next_ == this);
+}
+
+
+/*
+FAQ On subtle implementation details:
+
+1) What makes this problem subtle?  Please take a look at "Strategies
+for Implementing POSIX Condition Variables on Win32" by Douglas
+C. Schmidt and Irfan Pyarali.
+http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/win32-cv-1.html It includes
+discussions of numerous flawed strategies for implementing this
+functionality.  I'm not convinced that even the final proposed
+implementation has semantics that are as nice as this implementation
+(especially with regard to Broadcast() and the impact on threads that
+try to Wait() after a Broadcast() has been called, but before all the
+original waiting threads have been signaled).
+
+2) Why can't you use a single wait_event for all threads that call
+Wait()?  See FAQ-question-1, or consider the following: If a single
+event were used, then numerous threads calling Wait() could release
+their cs locks, and be preempted just before calling
+WaitForSingleObject().  If a call to Broadcast() was then presented on
+a second thread, it would be impossible to actually signal all
+waiting(?) threads.  Some number of SetEvent() calls *could* be made,
+but there could be no guarantee that those led to to more than one
+signaled thread (SetEvent()'s may be discarded after the first!), and
+there could be no guarantee that the SetEvent() calls didn't just
+awaken "other" threads that hadn't even started waiting yet (oops).
+Without any limit on the number of requisite SetEvent() calls, the
+system would be forced to do many such calls, allowing many new waits
+to receive spurious signals.
+
+3) How does this implementation cause spurious signal events?  The
+cause in this implementation involves a race between a signal via
+time-out and a signal via Signal() or Broadcast().  The series of
+actions leading to this are:
+
+a) Timer fires, and a waiting thread exits the line of code:
+
+    WaitForSingleObject(waiting_event, max_time.InMilliseconds());
+
+b) That thread (in (a)) is randomly pre-empted after the above line,
+leaving the waiting_event reset (unsignaled) and still in the
+waiting_list_.
+
+c) A call to Signal() (or Broadcast()) on a second thread proceeds, and
+selects the waiting cv_event (identified in step (b)) as the event to revive
+via a call to SetEvent().
+
+d) The Signal() method (step c) calls SetEvent() on waiting_event (step b).
+
+e) The waiting cv_event (step b) is now signaled, but no thread is
+waiting on it.
+
+f) When that waiting_event (step b) is reused, it will immediately
+be signaled (spuriously).
+
+
+4) Why do you recycle events, and cause spurious signals?  First off,
+the spurious events are very rare.  They can only (I think) appear
+when the race described in FAQ-question-3 takes place.  This should be
+very rare.  Most(?)  uses will involve only timer expiration, or only
+Signal/Broadcast() actions.  When both are used, it will be rare that
+the race will appear, and it would require MANY Wait() and signaling
+activities.  If this implementation did not recycle events, then it
+would have to create and destroy events for every call to Wait().
+That allocation/deallocation and associated construction/destruction
+would be costly (per wait), and would only be a rare benefit (when the
+race was "lost" and a spurious signal took place). That would be bad
+(IMO) optimization trade-off.  Finally, such spurious events are
+allowed by the specification of condition variables (such as
+implemented in Vista), and hence it is better if any user accommodates
+such spurious events (see usage note in condition_variable.h).
+
+5) Why don't you reset events when you are about to recycle them, or
+about to reuse them, so that the spurious signals don't take place?
+The thread described in FAQ-question-3 step c may be pre-empted for an
+arbitrary length of time before proceeding to step d.  As a result,
+the wait_event may actually be re-used *before* step (e) is reached.
+As a result, calling reset would not help significantly.
+
+6) How is it that the callers lock is released atomically with the
+entry into a wait state?  We commit to the wait activity when we
+allocate the wait_event for use in a given call to Wait().  This
+allocation takes place before the caller's lock is released (and
+actually before our internal_lock_ is released).  That allocation is
+the defining moment when "the wait state has been entered," as that
+thread *can* now be signaled by a call to Broadcast() or Signal().
+Hence we actually "commit to wait" before releasing the lock, making
+the pair effectively atomic.
+
+8) Why do you need to lock your data structures during waiting, as the
+caller is already in possession of a lock?  We need to Acquire() and
+Release() our internal lock during Signal() and Broadcast().  If we tried
+to use a callers lock for this purpose, we might conflict with their
+external use of the lock.  For example, the caller may use to consistently
+hold a lock on one thread while calling Signal() on another, and that would
+block Signal().
+
+9) Couldn't a more efficient implementation be provided if you
+preclude using more than one external lock in conjunction with a
+single ConditionVariable instance?  Yes, at least it could be viewed
+as a simpler API (since you don't have to reiterate the lock argument
+in each Wait() call).  One of the constructors now takes a specific
+lock as an argument, and a there are corresponding Wait() calls that
+don't specify a lock now.  It turns that the resulting implmentation
+can't be made more efficient, as the internal lock needs to be used by
+Signal() and Broadcast(), to access internal data structures.  As a
+result, I was not able to utilize the user supplied lock (which is
+being used by the user elsewhere presumably) to protect the private
+member access.
+
+9) Since you have a second lock, how can be be sure that there is no
+possible deadlock scenario?  Our internal_lock_ is always the last
+lock acquired, and the first one released, and hence a deadlock (due
+to critical section problems) is impossible as a consequence of our
+lock.
+
+10) When doing a Broadcast(), why did you copy all the events into
+an STL queue, rather than making a linked-loop, and iterating over it?
+The iterating during Broadcast() is done so outside the protection
+of the internal lock. As a result, other threads, such as the thread
+wherein a related event is waiting, could asynchronously manipulate
+the links around a cv_event.  As a result, the link structure cannot
+be used outside a lock.  Broadcast() could iterate over waiting
+events by cycling in-and-out of the protection of the internal_lock,
+but that appears more expensive than copying the list into an STL
+stack.
+
+11) Why did the lock.h file need to be modified so much for this
+change?  Central to a Condition Variable is the atomic release of a
+lock during a Wait().  This places Wait() functionality exactly
+mid-way between the two classes, Lock and Condition Variable.  Given
+that there can be nested Acquire()'s of locks, and Wait() had to
+Release() completely a held lock, it was necessary to augment the Lock
+class with a recursion counter. Even more subtle is the fact that the
+recursion counter (in a Lock) must be protected, as many threads can
+access it asynchronously.  As a positive fallout of this, there are
+now some DCHECKS to be sure no one Release()s a Lock more than they
+Acquire()ed it, and there is ifdef'ed functionality that can detect
+nested locks (legal under windows, but not under Posix).
+
+12) Why is it that the cv_events removed from list in Broadcast() and Signal()
+are not leaked?  How are they recovered??  The cv_events that appear to leak are
+taken from the waiting_list_.  For each element in that list, there is currently
+a thread in or around the WaitForSingleObject() call of Wait(), and those
+threads have references to these otherwise leaked events. They are passed as
+arguments to be recycled just aftre returning from WaitForSingleObject().
+
+13) Why did you use a custom container class (the linked list), when STL has
+perfectly good containers, such as an STL list?  The STL list, as with any
+container, does not guarantee the utility of an iterator across manipulation
+(such as insertions and deletions) of the underlying container.  The custom
+double-linked-list container provided that assurance.  I don't believe any
+combination of STL containers provided the services that were needed at the same
+O(1) efficiency as the custom linked list.  The unusual requirement
+for the container class is that a reference to an item within a container (an
+iterator) needed to be maintained across an arbitrary manipulation of the
+container.  This requirement exposes itself in the Wait() method, where a
+waiting_event must be selected prior to the WaitForSingleObject(), and then it
+must be used as part of recycling to remove the related instance from the
+waiting_list.  A hash table (STL map) could be used, but I was embarrased to
+use a complex and relatively low efficiency container when a doubly linked list
+provided O(1) performance in all required operations.  Since other operations
+to provide performance-and/or-fairness required queue (FIFO) and list (LIFO)
+containers, I would also have needed to use an STL list/queue as well as an STL
+map.  In the end I decided it would be "fun" to just do it right, and I
+put so many assertions (DCHECKs) into the container class that it is trivial to
+code review and validate its correctness.
+
+*/