Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:28:44 +1100 From: Michael Vince <mv@roq.com> To: "Arno J. Klaassen" <arno@heho.snv.jussieu.fr> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, java@freebsd.org, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: quest for help on a linux emul problem (source unknown) Message-ID: <438E51CC.1090807@roq.com> In-Reply-To: <wpveye506j.fsf@heho.labo> References: <wpveye506j.fsf@heho.labo>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Which linux port are you using?
I have had beta versions of OpenOffice2 for linux lock up my FreeBSD
amd64 desktop, but once I started using OO2 release for linux the
lockups went away. I also started using the Suse port.
/usr/ports/emulators/linux_base-suse-9.2/
OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=suse-9.2
in make.conf
Arno J. Klaassen wrote:
>Hello,
>
>
>I try to get a commercial linux32 package to work on amd64;
>this package includes it's own binary distrib of some
>linux-jdk1.3.1 and works OK on i386 (RELENG_5 and RELENG_6) but
>hangs on amd64-RELENG_6 (though it did work on a couple
>of months old amd64-RELENG-5, but I do not any longer have such
>a box around ... ).
>
>I write this email in the hope someone can put me on the right
>track to nail down this problem :
>
>when I do a ktrace on i386 I get :
>
> CALL mincore(0xbfbfc480,0)
> RET mincore 0
> CALL #175(0,0,0xbfbfc2b4,0x8)
> RET #175 0
> CALL #175(0x1,0xbfbfc3b8,0xbfbfc338,0x8)
> RET #175 0
> CALL mincore(0xbfbfc290,0)
> RET mincore 0
> CALL getdomainname(0xbfbfc288,0)
> RET getdomainname 0
>
>then some dozens of :
>
> CALL #175(0x2,0xbfbfc338,0,0x8)
> RET #175 0
> CALL mincore(0xbfbfc480,0)
> RET mincore 0
> CALL #175(0,0,0xbfbfc2b4,0x8)
> RET #175 0
> CALL #175(0x1,0xbfbfc3b8,0xbfbfc338,0x8)
> RET #175 0
> CALL mincore(0xbfbfc290,0)
> RET mincore 0
> CALL getdomainname(0xbfbfc288,0)
> RET getdomainname 0
>
>
>and finally :
>
> CALL #175(0x2,0xbfbfc338,0,0x8)
> RET #175 0
> CALL write(0xb,0x83189e8,0x18)
> GIO fd 11 wrote 24 bytes
>
>
>On amd64-RELENG_6 it eternally loops in phase2 and never
>reaches the 'finally'.
>
>Iff I understand correctly (far from sure!) and correct
>for different syscall-numbers, I get :
>
>ask-for-initing-something {
> gettimeofday()
> sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,..)
> sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK,..)
> gettimeofday()
> nanosleep()
>}
>
>while-not-OK {
> sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,..)
> gettimeofday()
> sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,..)
> sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK,..)
> gettimeofday()
> nanosleep()
>}
>
>OK! {
> sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,..)
> continue()
>}
>
>
>Since the program works OK in terminal mode, the problem
>very probably is in the jdk-execution. I re-downloaded the
>jdk13 sources and found that only at two places sigprocmask() is
>called with SIG_UNBLOCK as argument, and one of them only
>seems to serve the purpose of a work-around :
>
> * a workaround for the preemptive-close
> * problem on Linux (bug #4344135); A thread currently waiting in
> * a I/O operation will not wake up if one the file involved
> * is actually closed (last close - the file is no longer accessible,
> * but the thread is still waiting in the kernel).
>
>NB, this is a linux-jdk-1.3.0 problem, solved in linux-jdk-1.3.1,
>so "an sich" not involved in my problem, but the idea of a thread
>not waking up or signal not getting correctly delivered seems
>plausible to my simple end-user mind.
>
>once again, if this kind of pseudo-code sounds familiar to someone, please
>give me some hints which way to go to write a simple test-program
>to pinpoint the problem.
>Thank you very much for your time anyway.
>
>Regards, Arno
>
>
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?438E51CC.1090807>