DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5747>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5747

another deadlock in shutdown code

           Summary: another deadlock in shutdown code
           Product: Tomcat 4
           Version: Nightly Build
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: Normal
          Priority: Other
         Component: Catalina
        AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Yesterday's fix for bug 5719 leads us into a new one during shutdown..

Whilst trying to get the request dispatcher to service a request that came in
just before the stop request, getRequestDispatcher calls findChild in
ContainerBase and this requires a lock on the Container's children set.  This
lock is held by the shutdown thread which holds..

the shutdown thread looks like this 
  sleep:Thread
   unload:StandardWrapper
    stop:StandardWrapper
     removeChild:ContainerBase
      stop:ContextConfig
       lifecycleEvent:ContextConfig
        fireLifecycleEvent:LifecycleSupport
         stop:StandardContext
           stop:StandardHost
             stop:ManagerServlet

and my application thread looks like this:
     findChild:ContainerBase
      map:StandardContextMapper
       map:ContainerBase
        getRequestDispatcher:ApplicationContext
         getRequestDispatcher:HttpRequestBase
          getRequestDispatcher:RequestFacade
           getRequestDispatcher:ServletRequestWrapper
            include:JspRuntimeLibrary
             _jspService:base$1.jsp
              service:...

etc.
I'm running 4.0.1 with the yesterday's fix manually applied.

The example I gave in bug 5719 will also reproduce this bug.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to