i did some testing trying to switch malloc to use the new internal
lock with priority inheritance, and my malloc contention test got
20-100 times slower. if priority inheritance futexes are this slow,
it's simply too high a price to pay for avoiding priority inversion.
maybe we can consider them somewhere down the road once the kernel
folks get their act together on this (and perferably don't link it to
glibc's inefficient lock API)...

as such, i've switch __lock to use malloc's implementation of
lightweight locks, and updated all the users of the code to use an
array with a waiter count for their locks. this should give optimal
performance in the vast majority of cases, and it's simple.

malloc is still using its own internal copy of the lock code because
it seems to yield measurably better performance with -O3 when it's
inlined (20% or more difference in the contention stress test).

this bug probably would have gone unnoticed since it's only used in
the fallback code for systems where priority-inheritance locking
fails. unfortunately this approach results in one spurious wake
syscall on the final unlock, when there are no waiters remaining. the
alternative (possibly better) would be to use broadcast wakes instead
of reflagging the waiter unconditionally, and let each waiter reflag
itself; this saves one syscall at the expense of invoking the
"thundering herd" effect (worse performance degredation) when there
are many waiters.

ideally we would be able to update all of our locks to use an array of
two ints rather than a single int, and use a separate counter system
like proper mutexes use; then we could avoid all spurious wake calls
without resorting to broadcasts. however, it's not clear to me that
priority inheritance futexes support this usage. the kernel sets the
waiters flag for them (just like we're doing now) and i can't tell if
it's safe to bypass the kernel when unlocking just because we know
(from private data, the waiter count) that there are no waiters. this
is something that could be explored in the future.

we use priority inheritance futexes if possible so that the library
cannot hit internal priority inversion deadlocks in the presence of
realtime priority scheduling (full support to be added later).

this was discussed on the mailing list and no consensus on the
preferred solution was reached, so in anticipation of a release, i'm
just committing a minimally-invasive solution that avoids the problem
by ensuring that multi-threaded-capable programs will always have
initialized the thread pointer before any signal handler can run.

in the long term we may switch to initializing the thread pointer at
program start time whenever the program has the potential to access
any per-thread data.

even if pthread_create/exit code is not linked, run flag needs to be
checked and cleanup function potentially run on pop. thus, move the
code to the module that's always linked when pthread_cleanup_push/pop
is used.

the old abi was intended to duplicate glibc's abi at the expense of
being ugly and slow, but it turns out glib was not even using that abi
except on non-gcc-compatible compilers (which it doesn't even support)
and was instead using an exceptions-in-c/unwind-based approach whose
abi we could not duplicate anyway without nasty dwarf2/unwind
integration.

the new abi is copied from a very old glibc abi, which seems to still
be supported/present in current glibc. it avoids all unwinding,
whether by sjlj or exceptions, and merely maintains a linked list of
cleanup functions to be called from the context of pthread_exit. i've
made some care to ensure that longjmp out of a cleanup function should
work, even though it is not required to.

this change breaks abi compatibility with programs which were using
pthread cancellation, which is unfortunate, but that's why i'm making
the change now rather than later. considering that most pthread
features have not been usable until recently anyway, i don't see it as
a major issue at this point.

even a single-threaded program can be cancellable, e.g. if it's called
pthread_cancel(pthread_self()). the correct predicate to check is not
whether multiple threads have been invoked, but whether pthread_self
has been invoked.

this is not required by the standard, but it's nicer than corrupting
the state and rather inexpensive.