From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 20 07:24:11 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8450116A41F for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:24:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@nbux.com) Received: from smtp10.wanadoo.fr (smtp10.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9678643D45 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:24:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@nbux.com) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1008.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2EB512800168 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:24:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from daneel.nbux.com (LNeuilly-152-22-15-131.w82-127.abo.wanadoo.fr [82.127.94.131]) by mwinf1008.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0CF252800164; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:24:06 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20050820072407531.0CF252800164@mwinf1008.wanadoo.fr Received: from [192.168.42.2] (daneel.nbux.com [192.168.42.2]) by daneel.nbux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E1D1C1290; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:24:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4306DA96.8000904@nbux.com> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:24:06 +0200 From: Christophe Yayon Organization: nbux.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Eischen References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nagios and freebsd threads issue : help please ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:24:11 -0000 Daniel, But i am in stable '5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #4: Tue Jul 5 11:18:14 CEST 2005' and i have again the problem ... The post is from Jun 22... I don't understant why i have again the problem ? Could u help me, please ? Thanks. Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote: > > >>Hi all >> >>You should know about freebsd and nagios 2.0b threads issues (100% cpu >>use by a forked process, lost check result, some pause of nagios main >>process in certains obscursives conditions...). >> >>Some Nagios developpers says that the problem is in FreeBSD and some >>other says that the problem is in nagios pthreads implementation, here a >>resume of our discussions : >> From >> >>http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_atfork.html >> >> "It is suggested that programs that use fork() call an exec function >> very soon afterwards in the child process, thus resetting all states. In >> the meantime, only a short list of async-signal-safe library routines >> are promised to be available." >> >> Note *suggested*. This is a recommendation to protect against a shoddy >> pthread-implementation. The thread specifications rule that only the >> thread calling fork() is duplicated, which initially leads to the >> recommendation (other threads holding locks aren't around to release >> them in the new execution context). > > > They choose to quote a weak reference to the actual requirement. > The standard says (in the fork() section): > > A process shall be created with a single thread. If a > multi-threaded process calls fork(), the new process shall > contain a replica of the calling thread and its entire address > space, possibly including the states of mutexes and other > resources. Consequently, to avoid errors, the child process may > only execute async-signal-safe operations until such time as one > of the exec functions is called. Fork handlers may be > established by means of the pthread_atfork() function in order > to maintain application invariants across fork() calls. >