Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:01:26 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/118626: Bad interaction between SIGPIPE and threads. Message-ID: <4786A3C6.6080206@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200801102254.m0AMssWo045381@drugs.dv.isc.org> References: <200801102254.m0AMssWo045381@drugs.dv.isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Andrews wrote: >> David Schultz wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007, Mark Andrews wrote: >>>> The following reply was made to PR kern/118626; it has been noted by GNATS >> . >>>> From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> >>>> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, marka@isc.org >>>> Cc: sobomax@freebsd.org >>>> Subject: Re: kern/118626: Bad interaction between SIGPIPE and threads. >>>> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:41:16 +1100 >>>> >>>> I'll definitely try it. >>>> >>>> The man page for socket(2) should be updated to reference SO_NOSIGPIPE >>>> where it talks about SIGPIPE being generated. >>> The commit log says SO_NOSIGPIPE exists for compatibility, but it >>> looks fully implemented and supported. I've cc'd the original >>> author to find out if there's any good reason not to document it. >> It definitely should be documented fully. Converting threaded >> applications to use this can significantly reduce the lock contention >> associated with signal delivery and associated processing, and may >> improve performance. >> >> Kris > > FYI: libisc and libbind will both being using SO_NOSIGPIPE when it > is available as it is the only way to make the libraries safe in a > threaded envirionment without impacting on the applications use of > SIGPIPE. Yeah, that's another excellent point. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4786A3C6.6080206>