Well ... i think we found the root cause, in one of the libraries being used, the mutex was not being initialized. Thanks!
venkatnv wrote: > > We are observing issues with pthread Mutexes on Apache22/Solaris10. Not > sure if this is relevant to this thread, but would appreciate any inputs. > > - We are running Apache22 in Worker mode. Apache22 is compiled with gcc346 > on Solaris10 > - We are having a custom module (DSO) loaded with Apache. > > On stress test, we see that a mutex is not working as intended. > (pthread_mutex_lock) > To be precise, we are seeing core dumps and further investigation revealed > that there are two threads that have acquired a lock using > pthread_mutex_lock, a the same time. > > Please note that we do not see this behavior on Apache2. This occurs only > with Apache22. Has anyone come across a similar situation. Any help in > narrowing down the cause would be greatly appreciated! > > Regards, > Venkat. > > > Rainer Jung-3 wrote: >> >> On 30.03.2009 20:58, Jeff Trawick wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:traw...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com >>> <mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Anyone know if: >>> >>> # POSIX semaphores and cross-process pthread mutexes are not # used >>> by default since they have less desirable behaviour when # e.g. a >>> process holding the mutex segfaults. >>> >>> is still applicable, at least for posix sems? >>> >>> >>> AFAIK, the Solaris-specific recovery logic for cross-process pthread >>> mutexes has been working reliably for a long time, but with the >>> current wind direction APR is choosing fcntl(), which has sysdef >>> implementations on that >>> >>> >>> ugh; "sysdef implications" >> >> and quite often shows EDEADLOCK, even when you can prove there can't be >> one. Especially when starting to use more than one lock of that type >> (e.g. when SSL comes into the game). >> >>> platform. >>> >>> no clues here about the POSIX semaphores >> >> I would be much interested in an answer as well. Because of the >> EDEADLOCK problems I did suggest using the pthread based mutex on >> Solaris for a while to people and got no problem reports. But what >> experience do others have? >> >> In a related thread on the Tomcat users list about mod_jk I wrote in >> February: >> >> I now did some searching and it turns out that the implementation of >> pthread mutexes for Solaris 10 has very recently changed quite a bit. >> So all speculations about improved pthread mutex behaviour >> (especially for "robust" mutexes) in the last years might have become >> obsolete. >> >> The new implementation is contained in Solaris kernel patch 137137-09 >> and most likely also in Solaris 10 Update 6 (10/08). I didn't check, >> whether that update simply contains the kernel patch or the fix is >> included independently. >> >> Some detail is logged in Sunsolve under the bug IDs >> >> 6296770 2160259 6664275 6697344 6729759 6564706 >> >> Regards, >> >> Rainer >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Posix-sems-still-not-recommended--tp22789262p23222108.html Sent from the APR Dev (Apache Portable Runtime) mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
