[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lockup
From: |
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu |
Subject: |
Re: Lockup |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:12:31 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6 (Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.0.50 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:36:39 +0200, Jan Djärv <address@hidden> said:
> A signal yes, but I was thinking of this scenario:
> A Gnome thread does malloc, gets the mutex lock and enters the
> malloc code. A signal is delivered (in the main thread as you point
> out) and enters malloc also. This situation is exactly like the one
> with the lockup, but here we can't use BLOCK_INPUT around the malloc
> related functions because they are in the Gnome code.
I think such a case just behaves like a usual mutual exclusion between
multiple threads: one thread acquires a mutex, and the other blocks
until it is released.
> I agree with your assumtion that the lockuo occurs because the
> signal handler and the interrupted therad are calling
> pthread_mutex_(un)lock for the same mutex. But BLOCK_INPUT does not
> help, because Gnome code does not have it.
That's not a problem because Gnome threads (non-main threads) never
execute pthread_mutex_(un)lock in the signal hander context.
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
address@hidden
- Lockup, David Kastrup, 2006/08/01
- Re: Lockup, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/01
- Re: Lockup, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/10
- Re: Lockup, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/10
- Re: Lockup, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/10
- Re: Lockup, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/10
- Re: Lockup, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/10
- Re: Lockup, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/10
- Re: Lockup, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/11
- Re: Lockup,
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <=
- Re: Lockup, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/11
- Re: Lockup, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/11
- Re: Lockup, David Kastrup, 2006/08/11
- Re: Lockup, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/11