Fedotov, Alexei A wrote:
Guys,
Could you please help me to understand the following?
1. Is HARMONY-1904 actually a duplicate of my HARMONY-1879?
scanning quickly, I don't think so.
2. Ivan, do I remember correctly that you've already fixed that bug once
when debugging Eclipse long run failures? Where is that patch?
this bug arose when the new TM was added, which uses signals much more
aggressively.
geir
Thank you in advance.
With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Java & XML Engineering
-----Original Message-----
From: Weldon Washburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:36 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [classlib][luni] signalis interruptus in hysock
On 10/24/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Weldon Washburn wrote:
It seems JIRA is down for maintenance. If HARMONY-1904 is still
open
perhaps it makes sense to put a counter in the while (...) {
select...}
loop. And after every N loops, print a warning/diagnostic message.
For whom and to what end? Why not just return EINTR (in hysock
speak)?
The
value for N would have to be tuned. I don't know what the best
number
would
be. Given that 1904 patch is not the final solution, at least a
diagnostic
that hints at where the system hangs would be useful. It might
make
sense
to even print a stack trace. Also, I agree with Ivan below.
Signals
bugs
are very hard to debug. And diagnostics can help us all understand
the
corner cases better.
But so far, no one has shown that the system hangs, or can hang,
simply
because we return EINTR....
Sorry for not being clear. I was reacting to the patch in 1904 itself.
Not
the bigger issue of fixing the upper layers to comprehend EINTR. My
understanding is that this patch does not fix the problem. This patch
does
not return EINTR. If for whatever reason this patch is committed, I
recommend adding the above diagnostic code so that we don't dig
ourselves
an
even deeper hole.
If it is decided 1904 should not be committed, it might make sense to
close it with "won't fix".
geir
On 10/20/06, Ivan Volosyuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ivan Volosyuk wrote:
Well, I think that the solution is what Geir suggests. One
think
which
bothers me is following. EINTR can happen in different places
and
the
situations can be quite rare in some circumstances. It can
lead to
hard to reproduce stability bugs (race conditions).
Can you give an example?
Half a year ago, I was working on the problem. Socket operations
get
sometimes interrupted. We have found out that it occurs sometime
after
GC. It was not quite easy as the application was quite big and
situation - quite rare.
Given the fact, that current implementation of monitor reservation
code can stop other thread in quite random fashion we should have
rock
solid support of EINTR handling everywhere the select(), poll()
calls
is used.
--
Ivan
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
We should find a
way how to test the implementation.
+1!
:)
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Weldon Washburn
Intel Middleware Products Division
