Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 07:30:10 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: "Arne H. Juul" <arnej@pvv.ntnu.no>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: close() of active socket does not work on FreeBSD 6 Message-ID: <200612130730.10973.davidxu@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612121543220.8780@sea.ntplx.net> References: <32874.1165905843@critter.freebsd.dk> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612121543220.8780@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 04:49, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <20061212160016.W56465@delplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: > >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> > >> It's probably a nightmare in the kernel too. close() starts looking > >> like revoke(), and revoke() has large problems and bugs in this area. > > > > There is the distinctive difference that revoke() operates on a name > > and close() on a filedescriptor, but otherwise I agree. > > Well, if threads waiting on IO are interruptable by signals, > can't we make a new signal that's only used by the kernel > and send it to all threads waiting on IO for that descriptor? > When it gets out to actually setup the signal handler, it > just resumes like it is returning from an SA_RESTART signal > handler (which according to another posting would reissue > the IO command and get EBADF). Stop using signal, it is slow for threaded process, first you don't know which threads are using the descriptor, second, you have to run long code path in kernel signal code to find and deliver the signals to all interested threads, that is too expensive for benchmark like apache benchmark. David Xu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612130730.10973.davidxu>