From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 14 02:30:19 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFDC16A423
	for <freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:30:18 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B8E43D46
	for <freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:30:18 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1E2UHjC036610
	for <freebsd-threads@freefall.freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:30:17 GMT
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k1E2UHhK036609;
	Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:30:17 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:30:17 GMT
Message-Id: <200602140230.k1E2UHhK036609@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: threads/89262: [kernel] [patch] multi-threaded process hangs
 in kernel in fork()
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:30:19 -0000

The following reply was made to PR threads/89262; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, garry@networkphysics.com
Subject: Re: threads/89262: [kernel] [patch] multi-threaded process hangs
 in kernel in fork()
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:23:14 +0800

 John Baldwin wrote:
 > On Monday 13 February 2006 04:11, David Xu wrote:
 > 
 >>ast will call userret which in turn will call thread_suspend_check.
 >>so the bug may not be here, but in other code.
 >>
 >>I have found a race between sleep queue and thread suspension code,
 >>the following patch fixed the bug, it also simplified interaction
 >>between sleep queue and signal code. now, sleepq_abort() is also
 >>fixed, it can save an errno, unlike current code, it wrongly works
 >>as wakeup().
 >>
 >>http://people.freebsd.org/~davidxu/patch/slpq_susp4.patch
 >>
 >>David Xu
 > 
 > 
 > Only thing I would prefer is that you keep sleepq_catch_signals() but make it 
 > an internal function that sleepq_waitsig() and sleepq_timed_waitsig() call 
 > before sleepq_switch() so that sleepq_switch() doesn't get so long. 
 The main reason I have inlined sleepq_catch_signals into sleepq_switch
 is proc and scheduler lock, I have to lock scheduler lock before 
 releasing proc lock. if I leave sleepq_catch_signals there,  other
 places have to lock scheduler lock before calling sleepq_switch.
 
 
 > Also, it 
 > would be good.  Also, in sleepq_switch() you are using sleepq_release() and 
 > sleepq_lock() even though you already have a sleepqueue_chain pointer, and 
 > you do mtx operations on sc->sc_lock explicitly in some other places.  It 
 > would be best to consistently just do mutex ops on sc->sc_lock instead of 
 > redoing the hash-lookup several times.
 > 
 
 Yes, this can be improved.
 
 David Xu