|Title:||A New C-API for Thread-Local Storage in CPython|
|Author:||Erik M. Bray, Masayuki Yamamoto|
The proposal is to add a new Thread Local Storage (TLS) API to CPython which would supersede use of the existing TLS API within the CPython interpreter, while deprecating the existing API.
Because the existing TLS API is only used internally (it is not mentioned in the documentation, and the header that defines it, pythread.h, is not included in Python.h either directly or indirectly), this proposal probably only affects CPython, but might also affect other interpreter implementations (PyPy?) that implement parts of the CPython API.
The current API for TLS used inside the CPython interpreter consists of 5 functions:
PyAPI_FUNC(int) PyThread_create_key(void) PyAPI_FUNC(void) PyThread_delete_key(int key) PyAPI_FUNC(int) PyThread_set_key_value(int key, void *value) PyAPI_FUNC(void *) PyThread_get_key_value(int key) PyAPI_FUNC(void) PyThread_delete_key_value(int key)
These would be superseded by a new set of analogous functions:
PyAPI_FUNC(int) PyThread_tss_create(Py_tss_t *key) PyAPI_FUNC(void) PyThread_tss_delete(Py_tss_t key) PyAPI_FUNC(int) PyThread_tss_set(Py_tss_t key, void *value) PyAPI_FUNC(void *) PyThread_tss_get(Py_tss_t key) PyAPI_FUNC(void) PyThread_tss_delete_value(Py_tss_t key)
along with a new type Py_tss_t--an opaque type the definition of which is undefined here, and may depend on the underlying TLS implementation.
The new PyThread_tss_ functions are almost exactly analogous to their original counterparts with a minor difference: Whereas PyThread_create_key takes no arguments and returns a TLS key as an int, PyThread_tss_create takes a Py_tss_t* as an argument, and returns a Py_tss_t by pointer--the int return value is a status, returning zero on success and non-zero on failure. The meanings of non-zero status codes are not not defined by this specification.
The old PyThread_*_key* functions will be marked as deprecated.
Additionally, on platforms where sizeof(pthread_key_t) != sizeof(int), PyThread_create_key will return immediately with a failure status, and the other TLS functions will all be no-ops.
The primary problem at issue here is the type of the keys (int) used for TLS values, as defined by the original PyThread TLS API.
The original TLS API was added to Python by GvR back in 1997, and at the time the key used to represent a TLS value was an int, and so it has been to the time of writing. This used CPython's own TLS implementation, the current generation of which can still be found, largely unchanged, in Python/thread.c. Support for implementation of the API on top of native thread implementations (NT and pthreads) was added much later, and the built-in implementation may still be used on other platforms.
The problem with the choice of int to represent a TLS key, is that while it was fine for CPython's internal TLS implementation, and happens to be compatible with NT (which uses DWORD for the analogous data), it is not compatible with the POSIX standard for the pthreads API, which defines pthread_key_t as an opaque type not further defined by the standard (as with Py_tss_t described above). This leaves it up to the underlying implementation how a pthread_key_t value is used to look up thread-specific data.
This has not generally been a problem for Python's API, as it just happens that on Linux pthread_key_t is defined as an unsigned int, and so is fully compatible with Python's TLS API--pthread_key_t's created by pthread_create_key can be freely cast to int and back (well, not exactly, even this has some limitations as pointed out by issue #22206).
However, as issue #25658 points out, there are at least some platforms (namely Cygwin, CloudABI, but likely others as well) which have otherwise modern and POSIX-compliant pthreads implementations, but are not compatible with Python's API because their pthread_key_t is defined in a way that cannot be safely cast to int. In fact, the possibility of running into this problem was raised by MvL at the time pthreads TLS was added .
It could be argued that PEP-11 makes specific requirements for supporting a new, not otherwise officially-support platform (such as CloudABI), and that the status of Cygwin support is currently dubious. However, this creates a very high barrier to supporting platforms that are otherwise Linux- and/or POSIX-compatible and where CPython might otherwise "just work" except for this one hurdle. CPython itself imposes this implementation barrier by way of an API that is not compatible with POSIX (and in fact makes invalid assumptions about pthreads).
The use of an opaque type (Py_tss_t) to key TLS values allows the API to be compatible, at least in this regard, with CPython's internal TLS implementation, as well as all present (NT and posix) and future (C11?) native TLS implementations supported by CPython, as it allows the definition of Py_tss_t to depend on the underlying implementation.
A new API must be introduced, rather than changing the function signatures of the current API, in order to maintain backwards compatibility. The new API also more clearly groups together these related functions under a single name prefix, PyThread_tss_. The "tss" in the name stands for "thread-specific storage", and was influenced by the naming and design of the "tss" API that is part of the C11 threads API. However, this is in no way meant to imply compatibility with or support for the C11 threads API, or signal any future intention of supporting C11--it's just the influence for the naming and design.
Changing PyThread_create_key to immediately return a failure status on systems using pthreads where sizeof(int) != sizeof(pthread_key_t) is intended as a sanity check: Currently, PyThread_create_key may report initial success on such systems, but attempts to use the returned key are likely to fail. Although in practice this failure occurs earlier in the interpreter initialization, it's better to fail immediately at the source of problem (PyThread_create_key) rather than sometime later when use of an invalid key is attempted. In other words, this indicates clearly that the old API is not supported on platforms where it cannot be used reliably, and that no effort will be made to add such support.
- Do nothing: The status quo is fine because it works on Linux, and platforms wishing to be supported by CPython should follow the requirements of PEP-11. As explained above, while this would be a fair argument if CPython were being to asked to make changes to support particular quirks or features of a specific platform, in this case it is quirk of CPython that prevents it from being used to its full potential on otherwise POSIX-compliant platforms. The fact that the current implementation happens to work on Linux is a happy accident, and there's no guarantee that this will never change.
- Affected platforms should just configure Python --without-threads: This is a possible temporary workaround to the issue, but only that. Python should not be hobbled on affected platforms despite them being otherwise perfectly capable of running multi-threaded Python.
- Affected platforms should not define Py_HAVE_NATIVE_TLS: This is a more acceptable alternative to the previous idea, and in fact there is a patch to do just that . However, CPython's internal TLS implementation being "slower and clunkier" in general than native implementations still needlessly hobbles performance on affected platforms. At least one other module (tracemalloc) is also broken if Python is built without Py_HAVE_NATIVE_TLS.
- Keep the existing API, but work around the issue by providing a mapping from pthread_key_t values to int values. A couple attempts were made at this (, ), but this only injects needless complexity and overhead into performance-critical code on platforms that are not currently affected by this issue (such as Linux). Even if use of this workaround were made conditional on platform compatibility, it introduces platform-specific code to maintain, and still has the problem of the previous rejected ideas of needlessly hobbling performance on affected platforms.
This document has been placed in the public domain.