Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071024 19:32] wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071024 18:34] wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
julian 2007-10-23 17:54:16 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
sys/kern kern_fork.c
Log:
Take out the single-threading code in fork.
After discussions with jeff, alc, (various Ironport people), david Xu,
and mostly Alfred (who found the problem) it has been demonstrated that
this
is not needed for our implementations of threads and represents a real
(as in we've seen it happen a lot) deadlock danger.
...
I think if process is forking a thread, that says flag RFPROC is not
set and flags RFCFDG or RFCFDG is set, you still need to call
thread_single(SINGLE_BOUNDARY), otherwise, for a threaded process,
the memory pointed by p_fd is freed while other threads are using it,
it will cause kernel to panic.
This is unlikely to be fixed by SINGLE_BOUNDARY and will likely require
refcounting to fix. SINGLE_BOUNDARY will not fix the locations where
this happens:
p = td->td_proc;
fdp = p->p_fd;
do something that blocks...
re-use fdp.
thread_suspend_check() with SINGLE_BOUNDARY is used is only called
in userret() where I don't think any code is still using the p_fd.
This is not an acceptable solution as it will deadlock unless all
threads exit the kernel.
filedescs can be refcounted per thread I think.
you are both right I think..
David about the theoretical SINGLE_BOUNDARY idea, and Alfred about
how it's implememted right now.
At the 'boundary' single threading should be safe, if things are at the
boundary,
but there is no guarantee that it will get there in finite time.
I'm not convinced from reading the code that the BOUNDARY version of
thread_single is implemented
correctly at this time as I think it may have suffered from bit-rot over the
years.
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
