==> Regarding Re: [patch, rfc] fix hung automounter issues; Ian Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> adds:
raven> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Jeff Moyer wrote: I'm inpressed, this looks raven> like a fine piece of work guys. It's going to take a while to work raven> through this. raven> Also This is bound to make merging Denis Vlasenkos' logging patches raven> really hard. So there's potentially a fair bit of work in this. Well, you can go ahead and apply his patches, and I'll merge this stuff in afterwards. Just let me know when you have that all set in CVS. >> Hi, Ian, >> >> Dan Berrange did a spectacular job of diagnosing some autofs hangs he >> was experiencing. The automount daemon would appear hung, and an an >> strace of the process would show sys_futex on the call stack. Through >> his debugging, he figured out that the problem was autofs issuing syslog >> calls while in a signal handler. raven> One, probably stupid question (humour me). raven> Shouldn't we be able use syslog in a signal handler? Nope: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_04.html#tag_02_04 >> So, there are a few ways to fix this that come to mind. >> >> o We could not log in signal handlers. I don't consider this an >> acceptable solution, as we really need the debug messages generated >> there. o We could defer logging to non-signal handler context. This is >> in fact what the attached pattch does. It queues the syslog messages, >> and flushes them upon the next syslog that occurs outside of signal >> handler context. o We could open /dev/log directly. This is likely a >> bad idea as there is no standard for the interface there. o We could >> have a separate logging process, which we write to via a pipe. I'm not >> keen on this as it adds yet another process, and makes shutdown that >> much more complicated. >> raven> I actually like the last option but a multi threaded autofs is not raven> likely to happen for a long time. It does not imply threading. You can simply fork(). raven> Would another option be to make autofs signal safe by doing all the raven> work in subprocesses? There are a number of ways to address this by changing the control structure of the daemon. However, that seemed way to invasive at this stage of the game. The ideal solution is to do less in the sig_child handler, deferring the work just like we do for all of the other caught signals. >> Note that in all of the above cases, we still need to implement a >> signal-safe vsprintf. That is what the bulk of this patch is. raven> What about a signal safe syslog? Is this something we push to the raven> libc guys, both a signal safe vsprintf and syslog? Well, we can certainly try, but this won't gain you anything in the short term. I'll think more about having a separate logging process. If it seems easy enough to implement, I'll post a first whack at it. In the mean time, I think we should continue to discuss our alternatives. -Jeff _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
