1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
For delivering a signal, Mach forwards an `msg_sig_post` message from the
invoker of `kill` to the target process. The target process' [[signal_thread]]
job is it to listen to such messages and to set up signal handler contexts in
other threads.
---
[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-04-20
<braunr> bugs around signals are very tricky
<braunr> signals are actually the most hairy part of the hurd
<braunr> and the reason they're aynchronous is that they're handled by a
second thread
<braunr> (so yes, every process on the hurd has at least two threads)
<svante_> braunr: How to solve the asynch problem then if every process has
two threads?
<braunr> the easiest method would be to align ourselves on what most other
Unices do
<braunr> establish a "signal protocol" between kernel and userspace
<braunr> with a set of signal info in a table, most likely at the top of
the stack
<braunr> but this is explicitely what the original Mach developers didn't
want, and they were right IMO
<braunr> having two threads is very clean, but it creates incompatibilites
with what POSIX requires
<braunr> so there might be a radical choice to make here
<braunr> and i doubt we have the resources to make it happen
<svante_> What is the advantage of having two threads per process, a per
the original design?
<braunr> it's clean
<braunr> you don't have to define async-signal-safe functions
<braunr> it's like using sigwait() yourself in a separate thread, or
multiplexing them through signalfd()
<svante_> Regardless of the advantages, isn't two threads per process a
waste of resources?
<braunr> sure it is
<braunr> but does it really matter ?
<braunr> mach and the hurd were intended to be "hyperthreaded"
[[open_issues/multithreading]].
|
