Hi everyone,
I have a question regarding pthreads. In particular, I was wondering why
there is no way to suspend and resume a thread in Linux.
In Windows, there is SuspendThread() and ResumeThread() from
processthreadsapi.h. However in Linux, there does not seem to be a
similar function in pthread.h.
When researching this issue i found multiple ways to work around the
inability of suspending a thread, such as using mutexes. But my question
is why nobody bothered implementing suspending/resuming threads.
I found one answer on stackoverflow [1] that mentions that
pthread_suspend and pthread_resume_np is in the "Unix specification",
but not implemented in Linux. I tried to follow up on this hint and get
access to the Posix spec, but i am not affiliated with a university
anymore, so i was unable to download the spec.
I read "man 7 pthreads". It mentions that there are two Linux
implementations of Posix threads, that differ in some details from the
Posix spec. However, it does not mention suspending or resuming threads
at all.
I hope this is the right mailing list for my question. If it is
off-topic, please accept my apologies.
So my question is: What is the reason that Linux does not implement
functions for suspending and resuming threads?
Best regards
Henning
[1]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11468333/linux-threads-suspend-resume/13399592#13399592
[also Cc: linux-pm people]
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 12:20:04PM +0100, Dr. Henning Kopp wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a question regarding pthreads. In particular, I was wondering why
> there is no way to suspend and resume a thread in Linux.
>
> In Windows, there is SuspendThread() and ResumeThread() from
> processthreadsapi.h. However in Linux, there does not seem to be a similar
> function in pthread.h.
>
> When researching this issue i found multiple ways to work around the
> inability of suspending a thread, such as using mutexes. But my question is
> why nobody bothered implementing suspending/resuming threads.
>
> I found one answer on stackoverflow [1] that mentions that pthread_suspend
> and pthread_resume_np is in the "Unix specification", but not implemented in
> Linux. I tried to follow up on this hint and get access to the Posix spec,
> but i am not affiliated with a university anymore, so i was unable to
> download the spec.
>
> I read "man 7 pthreads". It mentions that there are two Linux
> implementations of Posix threads, that differ in some details from the Posix
> spec. However, it does not mention suspending or resuming threads at all.
LinuxThreads and NPTL?
>
> I hope this is the right mailing list for my question. If it is off-topic,
> please accept my apologies.
>
> So my question is: What is the reason that Linux does not implement
> functions for suspending and resuming threads?
>
Confused...
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 09:10:29PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> [also Cc: linux-pm people]
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 12:20:04PM +0100, Dr. Henning Kopp wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I have a question regarding pthreads. In particular, I was wondering why
> > there is no way to suspend and resume a thread in Linux.
> >
> > In Windows, there is SuspendThread() and ResumeThread() from
> > processthreadsapi.h. However in Linux, there does not seem to be a similar
> > function in pthread.h.
> >
> > When researching this issue i found multiple ways to work around the
> > inability of suspending a thread, such as using mutexes. But my question is
> > why nobody bothered implementing suspending/resuming threads.
> >
> > I found one answer on stackoverflow [1] that mentions that pthread_suspend
> > and pthread_resume_np is in the "Unix specification", but not implemented in
> > Linux. I tried to follow up on this hint and get access to the Posix spec,
> > but i am not affiliated with a university anymore, so i was unable to
> > download the spec.
> >
> > I read "man 7 pthreads". It mentions that there are two Linux
> > implementations of Posix threads, that differ in some details from the Posix
> > spec. However, it does not mention suspending or resuming threads at all.
>
> LinuxThreads and NPTL?
>
> >
> > I hope this is the right mailing list for my question. If it is off-topic,
> > please accept my apologies.
> >
> > So my question is: What is the reason that Linux does not implement
> > functions for suspending and resuming threads?
> >
>
> Confused...
These are indeed the wrong mailing lists (and people) for this question.
These lists are dedicated to discussions about the Linux kernel. But
pthreads is a userspace library; it runs in user mode and is not part of
the kernel at all.
The best approach would be to find the group responsible for writing and
maintaining the Linux pthreads implementation (probably some subgroup
of the people working on the GNU C library), and ask them.
Sorry I can't be of any more help.
Alan Stern
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 12:20:04PM +0100, Dr. Henning Kopp wrote:
>
> I found one answer on stackoverflow [1] that mentions that pthread_suspend
> and pthread_resume_np is in the "Unix specification"
This is not correct. It is *not* part of the Single Unix
Specification. The listing what is in the SUS can be found here:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/threads.html
HPUX seems to have implemented pthread_suspend, but it is not a formal
part of the Posix or Single Unix Specification's definition of Posix
Threads.
> I read "man 7 pthreads". It mentions that there are two Linux
> implementations of Posix threads, that differ in some details from the Posix
> spec. However, it does not mention suspending or resuming threads at all.
It states that LinuxThreads was shipped as part of glibc until 2.4.
Since 2.4, NPTL is the implementation that has been shipped. Note
that glibc 2.4 was shipped in 2006. This is just that man page is
quite old, and there is some information which is mostly ancient
history that hasn't been removed yet. There is also comments about
various aspects of NPTL that weren't fully POSIX compliant until
various 2.6.x kernels --- well the Linux 3.0 kernel was released in
2011, so again, there's just a lot of stuff there which can be safely
ignored as no longer relevant.
> So my question is: What is the reason that Linux does not implement
> functions for suspending and resuming threads?
Quoting from the Linux Threads FAQ:
E.4: How can I suspend and resume a thread from another thread?
Solaris has the thr_suspend() and thr_resume() functions to do
that; why don't you?
The POSIX standard provides no mechanism by which a thread A can
suspend the execution of another thread B, without cooperation from
B. The only way to implement a suspend/restart mechanism is to have
B check periodically some global variable for a suspend request and
then suspend itself on a condition variable, which another thread
can signal later to restart B.
Notice that thr_suspend() is inherently dangerous and prone to race
conditions. For one thing, there is no control on where the target
thread stops: it can very well be stopped in the middle of a
critical section, while holding mutexes. Also, there is no
guarantee on when the target thread will actually stop. For these
reasons, you'd be much better off using mutexes and conditions
instead. The only situations that really require the ability to
suspend a thread are debuggers and some kind of garbage collectors.
https://www.enseignement.polytechnique.fr/profs/informatique/Leo.Liberti/public/computing/parallel/threads/linuxthreads/linuxthreads-FAQ.html#E
Yes, LinuxThreads has been obsolete since 2006. But the rationale
that (a) suspending threads is dangerous, and handing a footgun to
application writesr might not be wise, and (b) therefore Posix
specification does not include the capability to suspend a thread, is
still true.
There is a non-standard way that you can suspend an individual thread
--- you need to get the Linux tid (note: *not* the pthread id; that's
different) and then you can send a SIGSTOP signal to the Linux thread
which will cause the kernel to suspend the thread, and you can send it
a SIGCONT thread that will cause the kernel to resume the thread.
This is not something that can be intercepted by the application, and
so there's nothing the Posix Thread library can do to make things
better for the application. If the application happens to be in a
critical section, holding some mutex when it no longer is allowed to
run, it might cause your program to wedge until it the SIGCONT signal
is send to the thread, and this might not be what you want.
Cheers,
- Ted