From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 6 22:20:26 2005 Return-Path: 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 B644316A422 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:20:26 +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 72E2643D48 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:20:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j96MKQvH040388 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:20:26 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j96MKQ9K040387; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:20:26 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:20:26 GMT Message-Id: <200510062220.j96MKQ9K040387@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org From: freebsd@spatula.net Cc: Subject: Re: threads/84778: libpthread busy loop/hang with Java when handling signals and Runtime.exec X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd@spatula.net List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:20:26 -0000 The following reply was made to PR threads/84778; it has been noted by GNATS. From: freebsd@spatula.net To: Dan Eischen Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threads/84778: libpthread busy loop/hang with Java when handling signals and Runtime.exec Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:19:22 -0700 (PDT) What about them is "not possible" exactly? What about ktrace showing a tight loop of kse_release calls followed by RET kse_release 0? Why is it perfectly fine with libc_r? In any case, I had originally reported this to -java, and was sent to -thread from there. On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Dan Eischen wrote: > The stack frames shown are not possible. Either the backtrace > is not correctly shown, or the stack is corrupt. I would suggest > refiling this to -java. >