Hi,
On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
What about adding a big fat warning in the doc about use of
‘primitive-fork’ in a multi-threaded program?
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
If other threads are active, I think primitive-fork should raise an
error.
Hey!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
On Tue 27 Mar 2012 08:54, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
What about adding a big fat warning in the doc about use of
‘primitive-fork’ in a
Heya :)
An ongoing discussion...
On Tue 27 Mar 2012 08:54, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
What about adding a big fat warning in the doc about use of
‘primitive-fork’ in a
Hi,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...]
Yes, things like ‘open-process’ make sense.
What about adding a big fat warning in the doc about use of
‘primitive-fork’ in a multi-threaded program?
Sure. WDYT about a
Hi :)
On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Without exposing ‘pthread_atfork’, how would you suggest making user
code “fork-safe”? A use case would be reviving the futures thread pool
after ‘fork’.
Humm, just tried to think about it for 10 minutes or so and I'm
after ‘fork’.
Did you see that I merged the atfork bits into master?
(wip-threads-and-fork also had some CLOEXEC bits that needed more
baking). They worked... sorta. They had a few problems:
1) It's impossible to work around the lack of atfork() in libraries
that you depend
user
code “fork-safe”? A use case would be reviving the futures thread pool
after ‘fork’.
Did you see that I merged the atfork bits into master?
(wip-threads-and-fork also had some CLOEXEC bits that needed more
baking). They worked... sorta. They had a few problems:
1) It's
On Sat 03 Mar 2012 22:20, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I’d prefer a solution where libguile-internal threads and locks are
suitably handled upon fork (basically what wip-threads-and-fork does),
and where users are provided with mechanisms to do the same at their
level–which boils
Hello :)
On Thu 01 Mar 2012 20:35, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I still think that saying that “a guile built with threads […] should
not call primitive-fork” is too strong, because again, it’s very, very
unlikely to fail when (= 1 (length (all-threads))), GNU/Linux or not.
OK,
Hi!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
The solution is, besides just avoiding fork() and threads, to take locks
on all interesting data structures when you fork(). Fortunately there
are not too many, and most locks are not nested, so it seems to be a
doable thing. In wip-threads-and-fork
with threads […] should
not call primitive-fork” is too strong, because again, it’s very, very
unlikely to fail when (= 1 (length (all-threads))), GNU/Linux or not.
Let’s not scare our users more than necessary. ;-)
And perhaps it can be fixed in 2.0 based on what ‘wip-threads-and-fork’
provides
Hi,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
On Sun 26 Feb 2012 23:03, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
+ if (scm_ilength (scm_all_threads ()) != 1)
+/* Other threads may be holding on to resources that Guile needs --
+ it is not
Hi,
On Sun 26 Feb 2012 23:00, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
A guile built without
threads may fork to its heart's content. However a guile built with
threads -- the default, recommended configuration -- should not call
primitive-fork.
That’s a strong statement.
Don't shoot the
On Sun 26 Feb 2012 23:03, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
+ if (scm_ilength (scm_all_threads ()) != 1)
+/* Other threads may be holding on to resources that Guile needs --
+ it is not safe to permit one thread to fork while
Hi,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
A guile built without
threads may fork to its heart's content. However a guile built with
threads -- the default, recommended configuration -- should not call
primitive-fork.
That’s a strong statement. When the only threads are the main thread
and
Hi,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
+ if (scm_ilength (scm_all_threads ()) != 1)
+/* Other threads may be holding on to resources that Guile needs --
+ it is not safe to permit one thread to fork while others are
+ running.
+
+ In
Hi!
On Sat 25 Feb 2012 03:30, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
'primitive-fork' shouldn't be removed directly according to
previous discussion, unless the user chosen ptheads. If they do not
use threads, then primitive-fork would be useful, is that right?
Indeed. In Guile master,
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi!
On Sat 25 Feb 2012 03:30, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
'primitive-fork' shouldn't be removed directly according to
previous discussion, unless the user chosen ptheads. If they do not
use threads, then
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 04:00, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
I think I could use pipes to handle some sub-process rather than do it
with fork manually. But I must create a daemon, it can't avoid to use
fork, will this circumstance cause problems if I use threads after it?
I just pushed
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 04:00, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
I think I could use pipes to handle some sub-process rather than do it
with fork manually. But I must create a daemon, it can't avoid to use
fork, will
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback :)
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 15:08, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
Considering the new 'open-process' hasn't been done, the issues left
suspending.
Maybe I have not expressed myself well. To be clear, the new
open-process implementation is now in both master
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback :)
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 15:08, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
Considering the new 'open-process' hasn't been done, the issues left
suspending.
Maybe I have not expressed myself
Hello :)
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 04:00, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
I think I could use pipes to handle some sub-process rather than do it
with fork manually. But I must create a daemon, it can't avoid to use
fork, will this circumstance cause problems if I use threads after it?
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
Hello :)
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 04:00, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
I think I could use pipes to handle some sub-process rather than do it
with fork manually. But I must create a daemon, it can't avoid to use
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
Hello :)
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 04:00, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
I think I could use pipes to handle some sub-process rather than do it
On Wed 22 Feb 2012 22:40, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Obviously we can treat the limited case of (ice-9 popen) in a more
portable fashion.
I have now rewritten open-process from ice-9 popen in C, so as to be
sure that only async-signal-safe routines get called. This should make
ice-9
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed 22 Feb 2012 22:40, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Obviously we can treat the limited case of (ice-9 popen) in a more
portable fashion.
I have now rewritten open-process from ice-9 popen in C, so as to be
sure
On Thu 23 Feb 2012 16:49, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
I just want to do my negative vote when I saw choose thead then fork
die, but I see open-process soon. ;-) So, what's the difference
between primitive-fork and open-process? If they're different, I
think much code to be
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu 23 Feb 2012 16:49, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
I just want to do my negative vote when I saw choose thead then fork
die, but I see open-process soon. ;-) So, what's the difference
between
Hi all,
An update on this issue. For context:
On Wed 08 Feb 2012 23:10, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
I was testing out the threaded web server and it was working well. Then
I tried it out with tekuti, a blog engine that uses git as the backend.
It uses (ice-9 popen) to talk to the
fork() and threads, to take locks
on all interesting data structures when you fork(). Fortunately there
are not too many, and most locks are not nested, so it seems to be a
doable thing. In wip-threads-and-fork, I added a scm_c_atfork interface
to define functions to call before and after a fork
31 matches
Mail list logo
