From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  2 14:28:59 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2466616A41F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:28:59 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B14443D4C
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 14:28:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id j72EStvv016954; 
	Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:28:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:28:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@haven.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <25679.1122992242@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508021021450.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: pthreads: shouldn't nanosleep() be a cancellation point ? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:28:59 -0000

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508021007350.5408-100000@sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eisc
> hen writes:
>
> >Hmm, the same could be said for sleep() in libc also, but we jump
> >through hoops to allow the thread libraries override sleep() with
> >their own cancellable version.  I think this is in case libc wants
> >to use sleep(), usleep(), nanosleep() internally and not introduce
> >cancellation points into functions that shouldn't have them.
>
> usleep() calls _nanosleep() but I wonder if it shouldn't be
> redirected into the thead libraraies like sleep/nanosleep ?

Yes, I think we should just add a cancellable version of usleep()
to libpthread/thread/thr_sleep.c.  syslog() is a consumer of
usleep(), but I think it really wants to use _usleep() or
_nanosleep().  By using usleep() it introduces a cancellation
point while holding a lock.

Do you want to do the mods to libpthread and libthr (in
libthr/thread/thr_syscalls.c) or do you want me to do them?

-- 
DE