Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 9 May 2011 19:39:46 +0400
From:      Max Brazhnikov <makc@issp.ac.ru>
To:        Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: automoc4 processes lock again
Message-ID:  <201105091939.47230.makc@issp.ac.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20110509124104.GF48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
References:  <201105091240.57785.makc@issp.ac.ru> <20110509124104.GF48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 May 2011 15:41:05 +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> You did not supplied enough information.
> Which of the processes is parent, which is child ?
> Note that there are other threads in the pid 18636. What does they do ?

Here is backtraces from all threads http://people.freebsd.org/~makc/automoc4.bt
63373 is a parent now, 63374 is a child.

There were no related changes in Qt4 and automoc4 sources, probably my update from 8.2-PRERELEASE to STABLE a week ago triggered the issue.

> If you would allow me to make some guess, then I could assume that pid
> 18640 is the child. Note that the child is waiting for the pthread
> mutex locked which protects the stdio' FILE structure. Now, assume
> additionally that the parent had the FILE locked in one thread while
> another thread did the fork. Then, the child process would never be able
> to obtain the lock because the lock was acquired by the thread that
> exists no longer (in the child process, only the thread that called
> fork is duplicated).
> 
> In fact, I believe that you already reported a similar problem with
> malloc(3) some time ago. The root of the problem would be an undefined
> (and permitted by POSIX) behaviour of calling non-async signal safe
> functions in multithreaded process after fork.
> 
> For malloc(3), this can be argued to be a quality of the implementation
> issue, but there is no reason to specially handle random mutexes, even
> from libc. If the mutex was locked during the fork time, the protected
> data structure is arguably in the inconsistent state after the fork in
> the child.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201105091939.47230.makc>