Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:43:05 -0500 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SoC: help with LISTs and killing procs Message-ID: <20060810154305.GA21483@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20060810153543.GA19047@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <20060810151616.GA17109@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20060810152359.GA21318@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20060810153543.GA19047@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 05:35:43PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:23:59AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 05:16:17PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
> > > hi
> > >=20
> > > I am doing this:
> > >=20
> > > (pseudocode)
> > > LIST_FOREACH_SAFE(em, &td_em->shared->threads, threads, tmp_em) {
> > >=20
> > > kill(em, SIGKILL);
> > > }
> > >=20
> > > kill(SIGKILL) calls exit() which calls my exit_hook()
> > >=20
> > > my exit_hook() does LIST_REMOVE(em, threads).
> > >=20
> > > the problem is that this is not synchronous so I am getting a panic b=
y INVARIANTS
> > > that "Bad link elm prev->next !=3D elm". This is because I list 1st i=
tem in the list
> > > I call kill on it, then process 2nd list, then scheduler preempts my =
code and calls
> > > exit() on the first proc which removes the first entry and bad things=
happen.=20
> > >=20
> > > I see this possible solutions:
> > >=20
> > > make this synchronous, it can be done by something like:
> > >=20
> > > ....
> > > kill(em, SIGKILL);
> > > wait_for_proc_to_vanish();
> > >=20
> > > pls. tell me what do you think about this solution and if its correct=
what is the wait_for_proc_to_vanish()
> > >=20
> > > maybe there's some better solution, pls tell me.
> >=20
> > It sounds like you need a lock protecting the list. If you held it over
> > the whole loop you could signal all processes before the exit_hook could
> > remove any.
>=20
> I dont understand. I am protecting the lock by a rw_rlock();
>=20
> the exit_hook() then acquires rw_wlock(); when removing the entry.
> what exactly do you suggest me to do? I dont get it.
This can't be the case. If you're holding a read lock around the
loop (it must cover the entire loop), it should not be possible for the
exit_hook() to obtain a write lock while you are in the loop. Just to
verify, is the lock for the list and not per element?
-- Brooks
--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFE21QIXY6L6fI4GtQRAqPuAJ9ZQU8u+K/aonW/PPa77NRYWJ4kNgCfUygQ
iX3d+4i+EdsfDsgunqHIpPY=
=K7US
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060810154305.GA21483>