Revert "rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn"

This reverts commit 95878586ec7611791f4001a4ee17abf943fae3c1.

1 files changed, 1301 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/libpthread/t/fix_have_kernel_resources.mdwn b/open_issues/libpthread/t/fix_have_kernel_resources.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..02b6ab05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/libpthread/t/fix_have_kernel_resources.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,1301 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012, 2013, 2014 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]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_libpthread]]
+
+`t/fix_have_kernel_resources`
+
+Address problem mentioned in [[/libpthread]], *Threads' Death*.
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-30
+
+    <braunr> tschwinge: this issue needs more cooperation with the kernel
+    <braunr> tschwinge: i.e. the ability to tell the kernel where the stack is,
+      so it's unmapped when the thread dies
+    <braunr> which requiring another thread to perform this deallocation
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-05-09
+
+    <bddebian> braunr: Speaking of which, didn't you say you had another "easy"
+      task?
+    <braunr> bddebian: make a system call that both terminates a thread and
+      releases memory
+    <braunr> (the memory released being the thread stack)
+    <braunr> this way, a thread can completely terminates itself without the
+      assistance of a managing thread or deferring work
+    <bddebian> braunr: That's "easy" ? :)
+    <braunr> bddebian: since it's just a thread_terminate+vm_deallocate, it is
+    <braunr> something like thread_terminate_self
+    <bddebian> But a syscall not an RPC right?
+    <braunr> in hurd terminology, we don't make the distinction
+    <braunr> the only real syscalls are mach_msg (obviously) and some to get
+      well known port rights
+    <braunr> e.g. mach_task_self
+    <braunr> everything else should be an RPC but could be a system call for
+      performance
+    <braunr> since mach was designed to support clusters, it was necessary that
+      anything not strictly machine-local was an RPC
+    <braunr> and it also helps emulation a lot
+    <braunr> so keep doing RPCs :p
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-05-10
+
+    <braunr> i'm not sure it should only apply to self though
+    <braunr> youpi: can we get a quick opinion on this please ?
+    <braunr> i've suggested bddebian to work on a new RPC that both terminates
+      a thread and releases its stack to help fix libpthread
+    <braunr> and initially, i thought of it as operating only on the calling
+      thread
+    <braunr> do you see any reason to make it work on any thread ?
+    <braunr> (e.g. a real thread_terminate + vm_deallocate)
+    <braunr> (or any reason not to)
+    <youpi> thread stack deallocation is always a burden indeed
+    <youpi> I'd tend to think it'd be useful, but perhaps ask the list
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-26
+
+    <braunr> looks like there is a port right leak in libpthread
+    <braunr> grmbl, the port leak seems to come from mach_port_destroy being
+      buggy :/
+    <braunr> hum, apparently we're not the only ones to suffer from port leaks
+      wrt mach_port_destroy
+    <braunr> ew, libpthread is leaking
+    <pinotree> memory or ports?
+    <braunr> both
+    <pinotree> sounds great ;)
+    <braunr> as it is, libpthread doesn't destroy threads
+    <braunr> it queues them so they're recycled late
+    <braunr> r
+    <braunr> but there is confusion between the thread structure itself and its
+      internal resources
+    <braunr> i.e. there is pthread_alloc which allocates a thread structure,
+      and pthread_create which allocates everything else
+    <braunr> but on pthread_exit, nothing is destroyed
+    <braunr> when a thread structure is reused, its internal resources are
+      replaced by new instances
+    <pinotree> oh
+    <braunr> it's ok for joinable threads but most of our threads are detached
+    <braunr> pinotree: as expected, it's bigger than expected :p
+    <braunr> so i won't be able to write a quick fix
+    <braunr> the true way to fix this is make it possible for threads to free
+      their own resources
+    <braunr> let's do that :p
+    <braunr> ok, got the new thread termination function, i'll build eglibc
+      package providing it, then experiment with libpthread
+    <pinotree> braunr: iirc there's also a tschwinge patch in the debian eglibc
+      about that
+    <braunr> ah
+    <pinotree> libpthread_fix.diff
+    <braunr> i see
+    <braunr> thanks for the notice
+    <braunr> bddebian:
+      http://www.sceen.net/~rbraun/0001-thread_terminate_deallocate.patch
+    <braunr> bddebian: this is what it looks like
+    <braunr> see, short and easy
+    <bddebian> Aye but didn't youpi say not to bother with it??
+    <braunr> he did ?
+    <braunr> i don't remember
+    <bddebian> I thought that was the implication.  Or maybe that was the one I
+      already did!?
+    <braunr> i'd be interested in reading that
+    <braunr> anyway, there still are problems in libpthread, and this call is
+      one building block to fix some of them
+    <braunr> some important ones
+    <braunr> (big leaks)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-29
+
+    <braunr> damn, i fix leaks in libpthread, only to find out leaks somewhere
+      else :(
+    <braunr> bddebian: ok, actually it was a bit more complicated than what i
+      showed you
+    <braunr> because in addition to the stack, the call must also release the
+      send right in the caller's ipc space
+    <braunr> (it can't be released before since there would be no mean to
+      reference the thread to destroy)
+    <braunr> or perhaps it should strictly be reserved to self termination
+    <braunr> hmm
+    <braunr> yes it would probably be simpler
+    <braunr> but it should be a decent compromise
+    <braunr> i'm close to having a libpthread that doesn't leak anything
+    <braunr> and that properly destroys threads and their resources
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-30
+
+    <braunr> bddebian: ok, it was even more tricky, because the kernel would
+      save the return value on the user stack (which is released by the call
+      and then invalid) before checking for asynchronous software traps (ASTs,
+      a kind of software interrupts in mach), and terminating the calling
+      thread is done by a deferred AST ... :)
+    <braunr> hmm, making threads able to terminate themselves makes rpctrace a
+      bit useless :/
+    <braunr> well, more restricted
+
+    <braunr> ok so, tough question :
+    <braunr> i have a small test program that creates a thread, and inspect its
+      state before any thread dies
+    <braunr> i can see msg_report_wait requests when using ps
+    <braunr> (one per thread)
+    <braunr> one of these requests create a new receive right, apparently for
+      the second thread in the test program
+    <braunr> each time i use ps, i can see the sequence numbers of two receive
+      rights increase
+    <braunr> i guess these rights are related to proc and signal handling per
+      thread
+    <braunr> but i can't find what create them
+    <braunr> does anyone know ?
+    <braunr> tschwing_: ^ :)
+
+    <braunr> again, too many things wrong elsewhere to cleanly destroy threads
+      ..
+    <braunr> something is deeply wrong with controlling terminals ..
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-01
+
+    <braunr> youpi: if you happen to notice what receive right is created for
+      each thread (beyond the obvious port used for blocking and waking up),
+      please let me know
+    <braunr> it's the only port leak i have with thread destruction
+    <braunr> and i think it's related to the proc server since i see the
+      sequence number increase every time i use ps
+
+    <braunr> pinotree: my change doesn't fix all the pthread leaks but it's a
+      lot better
+    <braunr> bddebian: i've spent almost the whole week end trying to find the
+      last port leak without success
+    <braunr> there is some weird bug related to the controlling tty that hits
+      me every time i try to change something
+    <braunr> it's the same bug that prevents ttys from being correctly closed
+      when using ssh or screen
+    <braunr> well maybe not the same, but it's close
+    <braunr> some stale receive right kept around for no apparent reason
+    <braunr> and i can't find its source
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-02
+
+    <braunr> and btw, i don't think i can make my libpthread patch work
+    <braunr> i'll just aim at avoiding leaks, but destroying threads and their
+      related resources depends on other changes i don't clearly see
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-03
+
+    <braunr> grmbl, i don't want to give up thread destruction ..
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-15
+
+    <braunr> btw, my work on thread destruction is currently stalled
+    <braunr> i don't have much free time right now
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-13
+
+    <braunr> i think i know why my thread_terminate_deallocate patches leak one
+      receive port :>
+    <braunr> but now i'm not sure of the proper solution
+    <braunr> every time a thread is created and destroyed, a receive right is
+      leaked
+    <braunr> i guess it's simply the reply port ..
+    <braunr> grmbl
+    <braunr> i guess i have to make it a simpleroutine ...
+    <braunr> hm too bad, it's not the reply port :(
+    <braunr> it's also leaking some memory
+    <braunr> it doesn't seem related to my changes though
+    <braunr> stacks, rights, and threads are correctly destroyed
+    <braunr> some obscure state is left behind
+    <braunr> i wonder how exception ports are dealt with
+    <braunr> vminfo seems to confirm memory is leaking in the heap
+    <braunr> humpf
+    <braunr> oh silly me
+    <braunr> i don't detach threads
+    <teythoon> well, detach them ;)
+    <braunr> hm worse :p
+    <braunr> now i get additional dead names
+    <braunr> but it's a step forward
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-16
+
+    <braunr> that thread port leak is so strange
+    <braunr> the leaked port seems to be created when the new thread starts
+      running
+    <braunr> so it looks like a port the kernel would implicitely create
+    <braunr> hm could it be a thread-specific reply port ?
+    <youpi> ah, yes, there is one of those
+    <braunr> how come mach/mig-reply.c in glibc isn't thread-safe ?
+    <youpi> it is overriden by sysdeps/mach/hurd/img-reply.c I guess
+    <youpi> which uses a threadvar for the mig reply port
+    <braunr> oh
+    <youpi> talking of which, there is also last_value in
+      sysdeps/mach/strerror_l.c
+    <youpi> strerror_thread_freeres is supposed to get called, but who knows
+    <braunr> it does look to be that port
+    <youpi> iirc that's the issue which prevents from letting us make threads
+      exit on idleness?
+    <braunr> one of them
+    <youpi> ok
+    <braunr> maybe the only one, yes
+    <braunr> i see memory leaks but they could be related/normal
+    <braunr> (i.e. not actual leaks)
+    <braunr> on the other hand, i also can't boot a hurd with my patch
+    <braunr> but i consider removing such leaks a priority
+    <braunr> does anyone know the semantic difference between
+      __mig_put_reply_port and __mig_dealloc_reply_port ?
+    <braunr> i guess __mig_dealloc_reply_port is actually a destruction
+      operation, right ?
+    <youpi> AIUI, dealloc is used when one wants the port not to be reused at
+      all
+    <youpi> because it has been used as a reference for something, and can
+      still be currently in use
+    <youpi> while put_reply would be when we're really done with it, and won't
+      use it again, and can thus be used as such
+    <youpi> or at least something like that
+    <braunr> heh
+    <braunr> __mig_dealloc_reply_port calls __mach_port_mod_refs, which is a
+      RPC, and creates a new reply port when destroying the current one
+    <youpi> bah
+    <youpi> that's fine, it's a deref of the old port, which is not in the
+      reply_port variable any more
+    <braunr> it's fine, but still a leak
+    <youpi> well, dealloc does not completely deallocs, yes
+    <braunr> that's not really the problem here
+    <braunr> i've introduced a case that wasn't considered at the time, namely
+      that a thread can destroy itself
+    <youpi> we probably need another function to be called from the thread exit
+    <braunr> i'll simply try with mach_port_destroy
+    <braunr> mach_port_destroy seems to be a RPC too ...
+    <braunr> grmbl
+    <youpi> isn't there a trap version somehow ?
+    <braunr> not in libc
+    <youpi> erf
+    <braunr> at least i know what's wrong now :)
+    <braunr> there still is a small memory leak i have to investigate
+    <braunr> but outside the stack
+    <braunr> the stack, the thread name and the thread are correctly destroyed
+    <braunr> slabinfo confirms only one port leak and nothing else is leaked
+    <braunr> ok so the port leak was indeed the thread-specific reply port,
+      taken care of
+    <braunr> there are also memory leaks too
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-17
+
+    <braunr> teythoon: on my side, i'm getting to know our threading
+      implementation better
+    <braunr> closing to clean thread destruction
+    <braunr> x15 ipc will hide reply ports ;p
+    <braunr> memory leaks solved \o/
+    <braunr> now, have to fix memory release when joining
+    <braunr> proper reference counting on detach/join/exit, let's see how it
+      goes ..
+    <braunr> seems to work fine
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-18
+
+    <braunr> ok i'll soon have gnumach and libc packages including proper
+      thread destruction :>
+    <teythoon> braunr: why did you have to touch gnumach?
+    <braunr> to add a call allowing threads to release ports and memory
+    <braunr> i.e. their last self reference, their reply port and their stack
+    <braunr> let me public my current patches
+    <teythoon> braunr: thread_commit_suicide ?
+    <braunr> hehe
+    <braunr> initially thread_terminate_self but
+    <braunr> it can be used by other threads too
+    <braunr> to i named it thread_terminate_release
+    <braunr> http://darnassus.sceen.net/~rbraun/0001-pthread_thread_halt.patch
+    <braunr>
+      http://darnassus.sceen.net/~rbraun/0001-thread_terminate_release.patch
+    <braunr> the pthread patch needs to be polished because it changes the
+      semantics of pthread_thread_halt
+    <braunr> but other than that, it should be complete
+    <pinotree> pthread_thread_halt_reallyhalt
+    <braunr> ok let's try these libc packages
+    <braunr> old static ext2fs for the root, but other than that, it boots
+    <braunr> let's try iceweasel
+    <braunr> (i'll need to build a hurd package against this new libc, removing
+      the libports_stability patch which prevents thread destruction in servers
+      on the way)
+    <teythoon> prevents thread destruction o_O
+    <braunr> yes
+    <braunr> in libports only ;p
+    <teythoon> oh, *only* in libports, I assumed for a moment that it affected
+      almost every component of the Hurd...
+    <teythoon> *phew(
+    <braunr> ... :)
+    <braunr> that's why, after a burst of messages, say because of aptitude
+      (select), you may see a few hundred threads still hanging around
+    <braunr> also why unused servers remain running even after several minutes,
+      where the normal timeout is 2mins
+    <teythoon> I wondered about that, some servers (symlink comes to mind) seem
+      to go away if unused (or that's how I read the code)
+    <braunr> symlinks are usually not servers, since most of them actually
+      exist in file systems, and are implemented through an optimization
+    <teythoon> yes I know that
+    <teythoon> trans/symlink.c reads:
+    <teythoon>       /* The timeout here is 10 minutes */
+    <teythoon>       err = mach_msg_server_timeout (fsys_server, 0, control,
+    <teythoon> 				     MACH_RCV_TIMEOUT, 1000 * 60 * 10);
+    <teythoon>       if (err == MACH_RCV_TIMED_OUT)
+    <teythoon> 	exit (0);
+    <braunr> ok
+    <teythoon> hm, /hurd/symlink doesn't feel at all like a symlink... but
+      works like one
+    <braunr> well, starting iceweasel makes X on my host freeze oO
+    <braunr> bbl
+    <teythoon> /hurd/symlink translators do go away after being unused for 10
+      minutes... this is funny if they are set up by hand instead of being
+      started from a passive translator record
+    <teythoon> magically vanishing symlinks ;)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-19
+
+    <braunr> hum, i can't rebuild a hurd package :(
+    <teythoon> braunr: with your thread destruction patches in libc?
+    <braunr> yes but it's unrelated
+    <braunr> In file included from ../../libdiskfs/boot-start.c:38:0:
+    <braunr> ./fsys_reply_U.h:173:15: error: conflicting types for
+      ‘fsys_get_children’
+    <braunr> i didn't see a new libc debian release
+    <teythoon> hm, David reported that as well
+    <teythoon>
+      id:CAEvUa7=QzOiS41G5Vq8k4AiaN10jAPm+CL_205OHJnL0xpJXbw@mail.gmail.com
+    <teythoon> uh oh
+    <teythoon> it seems I didn't add a _reply suffix to the reply routines :/
+    <teythoon> there's quite a bit of fallout from my patches, I kinda feel bad
+      :(
+    <braunr> teythoon: what i'm wondering is what youpi did too, since he got
+      hurd binary packages
+    <teythoon> braunr: well neither he nor I noticed that b/c for us the
+      declarations were just missing
+    <braunr> from libc you mean ?
+    <braunr> or hum gnumach-common ?
+    <teythoon> not sure actually
+    <braunr> no it's not a gnumach thing
+    <braunr> hurd-dev then
+    <teythoon> the build system should have cought these, or mig...
+    <braunr> also, i see you changed fsys_reply.defs, but nothing about
+      fsys_request.defs
+    <teythoon> I have no fsys_requests.defs
+    <braunr> looks like there was no fsys_request.defs in the first place
+      ... *sigh*
+    <braunr> do you know an application that often creates and destroys threads
+      ?
+    <teythoon> no, sorry
+    <pinotree> maybe some test suite
+    <braunr> ah right
+    <braunr> sysbench maybe
+    <braunr> also, i've been hit by a lot more network deadlocks than usual
+      lately
+    <braunr> fixing netdde has gained some priority in my todo list
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-20
+
+    <braunr> oh, git is multithreaded
+    <braunr> great
+    <braunr> so i've actually tested my libpthread patch quite a lot
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-25
+
+    <braunr> on a side note, i was able to build gnumach/libc/hurd packages
+      with thread destruction
+    <teythoon> nice :)
+    <braunr> they boot and work mostly fine, although they add their own issues
+    <braunr> e.g. the comm field of the root ext2fs is empty
+    <braunr> ps crashes when trying to display threads
+    <braunr> but thread destruction actually works, i.e. servers (those that
+      are configured that away at least) go away after some time, and even
+      heavily used servers such as ext2fs dynamically scale over time :)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-10
+
+    <braunr> concerning threads, i think i figured out the last bugs i had with
+      thread destruction
+    <braunr> it should be well on its way to be merged by the end of the year
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-11
+
+    <gg0> braunr: is your thread destruction patch ready for testing?
+    <braunr> gg0: there are packages at my repository, yes
+    <braunr> but i still have hurd fixes to do before i polish it
+    <braunr> in particular, posix says returning from main() stops the entire
+      process and all other threads
+    <braunr> i didn't check that during the switch to pthreads, and ext2fs (and
+      maybe others) actually return from main but expect other threads to live
+      on
+    <braunr> this creates problems when the main thread is actually destroyed,
+      but not the process
+    <teythoon> braunr: tmpfs does something like that, but calls pthread_exit
+      at the end of main
+    <braunr> same effect
+    <braunr> this was fine with cthreads, but must be changed with pthreads
+    <braunr> and libpthread must be fixed to enforce it
+    <braunr> (or libc)
+
+    <braunr> diskfs_startup_diskfs should probably be changed to reuse the main
+      thread instead of returning
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-19
+
+    <zacts> I know what threads are, but what is 'thread destruction'?
+    <braunr> the hurd currently never destroys individual threads
+    <braunr> they're destroyed when tasks are destroyed
+    <braunr> if the number of threads in a task peaks at a high number, say
+      thousands of them, they'll remain until the task is terminated
+    <braunr> such tasks are usually file systems, normally never restarted (and
+      in the case of the root file system, not restartable)
+    <braunr> this results in a form of leak
+    <braunr> another effect of this leak is that servers which should go away
+      because of inactivity still remain
+    <braunr> since thread destruction doesn't actually work, the debian package
+      uses a patch to prevent worker threads from timeouting
+    <braunr> and to finish with, since thread destruction actually doesn't
+      work, normal (unpatched) applications that destroy threads are certainly
+      failing bad
+    <braunr> i just need to polish a few things, wait for youpi to finish his
+      work on TLS to resolve conflicts, and that will be all
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-30
+
+    <braunr> FYI, the packages on my repository enable actual thread
+      destruction, and i've altered the libports_stability.patch
+    <braunr> it nows only sets the global timeout to 0
+    <braunr> now*
+    <braunr> we actually can't let translator "die" on global timeout because
+      of a race issue
+    <braunr> tested for about two weeks now and no major problem sighted
+    <braunr> top reports processes running for 100% of their time when
+      terminating threads, but i expect it's simply mach/proc aggregating their
+      run time to the task
+    <braunr> 100% of cpu time
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-08
+
+    <braunr> teythoon: darnassus is currently running a modified glibc with
+      thread destruction, yes
+    <teythoon> braunr: did that require any fixups in Hurd that I'd have missed
+      ?
+    <braunr> no
+    <braunr> well
+    <teythoon> b/c the resulting hurd package would not boot
+    <braunr> actually yes
+    <braunr> one
+    <braunr> i'll push the patch somewhere
+    <teythoon> iirc the mach-defpager spewed some error and /hurd/init failed
+      to bootstrap the system
+    <braunr> teythoon:
+      http://darnassus.sceen.net/~rbraun/0001-Prevent-diskfs-translators-from-destroying-main-thre.patch
+    <braunr> make sure you have the proper gnumach packages too :p
+    <teythoon> well, that could very well account for my trouble ;)
+    <teythoon> uh
+    <teythoon> well
+    <braunr> gnumach implements thread destruction, glibc uses it, hurd makes
+      sure it doesn't exit from main
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-12
+
+    <braunr> ok so, calling pthread_exit() from main isn't the same as
+      returning from main()
+    <braunr> unlike what some man pages seem to say
+    <braunr> so loosing task info when destroying the main thread is actually a
+      proc bug
+    <braunr> ugh
+    <teythoon> ^^
+    <braunr> or a glibc one
+    <teythoon> the proc server, your favorite Hurd component...
+    <braunr> :)
+    <braunr> hm :/
+    <braunr> looks like command line arguments are stored on the stack of the
+      main thread
+    <braunr> and proc merely receives the addresses of those in the target task
+    <neal> why not just keep the main thread around?
+    <neal> it represents a minor resource leak, true
+    <braunr> yes
+    <braunr> that's the hack i suggested
+    <neal> but it is relatively small
+    <braunr> well no
+    <braunr> my hack was about diskfs translators
+    <braunr> it should be generalized in libpthread
+    <braunr> seems reasonable
+    <braunr> let's do it >)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-13
+
+    <youpi> braunr: there is a thread destruction issue in the experimental
+      ocaml build, worth looking at, probably
+    <braunr> what do you mean ?
+    <youpi> ... testing 'testfork.ml': ocamlcocamlrun:
+      ../libpthread/sysdeps/mach/pt-thread-halt.c:51: __pthread_thread_halt:
+      Unexpected error: (ipc/send) invalid destination port.
+    <youpi> during the experimental ocaml build
+    <braunr> well yes
+    <braunr> thread recycling is buggy
+    <braunr> i had the choice to fix it, or implement true destruction
+    <braunr> i'm tweaking my patch so it leaves the main thread stack untouched
+      on destruction
+    <braunr> and it should be ready
+    <braunr> for review at least
+
+
+## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-11-13
+
+    <gg0> ironforge out of memory during ruby1.9.1 rebuild. during test which
+      creates 10000 threads
+    <gg0> ironforge out of memory during ruby1.9.1 rebuild, test which creates
+      10000 threads
+    <gg0> i guess ironforge kernel has been rebuilt against -95, correct?
+    <youpi> err, what kernel?
+    <gg0> 23:37 < youpi> hurd needs a rebuild to be able to work with the newer
+      eglibc
+    <gg0> i mean hurd
+    <youpi> yes, libc0.3 breaks the old packages anyway
+    <gg0> wrt ENOMEM, was it expected?
+    <gg0> wrt disk problems, aren't there on alioth only?
+    <youpi> well 10,000 threads is a lot, especially on 32bit machine with 2M
+      default stack  size
+    <youpi> that makes 2GiB stacks
+    <youpi> can't fit in a 2/2 split model, which gnumach uses
+    <gg0> well, though active thread should die right away, just after set x to
+      false, if i read it correctly
+    <youpi> perhaps the stacks are not correctly reused
+    <youpi> that's probably worth digging in libpthread
+    <youpi> by putting printfs, etc.
+    <youpi> it seems stacks are never reused indeed, damn
+    <youpi> I just wrote a small test that creates threads which just print
+      their stack address
+    <youpi> that takes just a few minutes to do
+    <gg0> i see. about reusage i guess you mean base address is kindof always
+      incremented
+    * gg0 likes being wrong
+    <youpi> that's it, yes
+    <youpi> gg0: take care, by keeping being wrong all the time, sometimes you
+      get right ;)
+    <youpi> and you are definitely right here :)
+    <youpi> Mmm, but the stack is really deallocated
+    <youpi> and the numbers wrap around
+    <youpi> I wonder how that is :)
+    <youpi> ok, creating 20 000 threads does work
+    <youpi> perhaps ruby does odd things which makes it not work
+
+
+### IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-11-14
+
+    <gg0>  UID   PID  PPID TH  MSGI  MSGO    SZ   RSS SC STAT     TIME COMMAND
+    <gg0> 1012 16446 15473 720  987   509 1.89G 23.6M  1 Hu    0:00.15
+      /home/gg0-guest/ruby/ruby1.9.git/ruby1.9.1
+      -I/home/gg0-guest/ruby/ruby1.9.git/lib -W0 bootstraptest.tmp.rb
+    <gg0> 720 threads, stuck
+    <youpi> 2G SZ is very big :)
+    <gg0> 00:42 < youpi> perhaps ruby does odd things which makes it not work
+    <gg0> is that enough to file a ruby bug? as ruby suggests itself btw
+    <youpi> no, they will probably not be able to investigate
+    <youpi> but you can already check out how they create threads
+    <youpi> and try to reproduce the same with a small C program
+    <gg0> ehm on ruby2.0 with *context _enabled_ i can not reproduce it
+
+See [[/open_issues/glibc]] for `*context` functions.
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-14
+
+    <braunr> nice, i got glibc packages with thread destruction
+    <braunr> building hurd packages against it now
+    <braunr> everything seems fine
+    <braunr> hurd packages ready, let's see
+
+    <gg0> ruby1.9.1 FTBFS due to a couple of tests
+      https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ruby1.9.1&arch=hurd-i386&ver=1.9.3.448-1&stamp=1384265526
+    <gg0> second one creates 10000 threads and machine got ENOMEM
+    <braunr> bootstraptest.tmp.rb: [BUG] [BUG] pthread_cond_init: Cannot
+      allocate memory (ENOMEM) ew
+    <gg0> few hours ago trying to reproduce it:
+    <gg0> 01:20 < gg0>  UID   PID  PPID TH  MSGI  MSGO    SZ   RSS SC STAT
+      TIME COMMAND
+    <gg0> 01:20 < gg0> 1012 16446 15473 720  987   509 1.89G 23.6M  1 Hu
+      0:00.15 /home/gg0-guest/ruby/ruby1.9.git/ruby1.9.1
+      -I/home/gg0-guest/ruby/ruby1.9.git/lib -W0 bootstraptest.tmp.rb
+    <braunr> yes that's expected
+    <braunr> our stacks are 2M
+    <braunr> 10k threads means right over 2G of stacks
+    <braunr> userspace is restricted to 2G
+    <gg0> but if i read correctly test in question, thread should just set x to
+      false then die
+    <braunr> so ?
+    <gg0> and ENOMEM popped upk when there were thread count was at 720
+    <braunr> hum
+    <braunr> 10k threads would actually be 20G
+    <braunr> 1k threads is 2G
+    <braunr> 720 is about 1.5G
+    <braunr> the rest is probably the ruby runtime
+    <gg0> youpi tried to create 10000 thread, no problem. he guessed something
+      wrong on ruby side
+    <gg0> indeed on ruby2.0 such test succeeds
+    <braunr> you can't create 10k threads unless you change the stack size
+    <braunr> hurd servers use a stack size of 64k by default which allows them
+      to go up to 30k iirc
+    <braunr> but normal applications use the default 2M
+    <gg0> i guess you mean 10000 threads active at the same time. test in
+      question should make them die after simply setting x to false, i guess
+      youpi's test did so as well
+    <braunr> no
+    <braunr> it's about stacks
+    <braunr> hm
+    <braunr> yes at the same time but
+    <braunr> thread recycling is known to be buggy
+    <braunr> which is what i'm currently fixing btw
+    <neal> what's the bug?
+    <braunr> neal: there are several subtle issues
+    <braunr> for example, joining a thread that is also calling pthread_exit
+      can fail badly
+    <neal> hmm
+    <neal> good that you are on it then :)
+    <braunr> or detaching
+    <braunr> i don't remember the details
+    <braunr> but i remember such problems
+    <braunr> apparently, keeping the stack of the main thread isn't enough
+    <braunr> :(
+    <braunr> for now, i'll keep the entire thread
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-15
+
+    <gg0> i wasn't doing anything, just some single test runs. but yes, also
+      that one which creates hundreds of threads
+    <gg0> it would like creating 10000 but goes out of memory after ~720
+    <gg0> btw same tests succeed on ruby2.0, so they should be fixed by
+      backporting some changes
+    <braunr> actually it looks more like a deadlock ..
+    <gg0> deadlock that says ENOMEM?
+    <braunr> ?
+    <braunr> ENOMEM is returned because the test task has no more virtual
+      memory
+    <braunr> this doesn't mean the rest of the system should fail
+    <gg0> ok i thought you were talking about such test
+    <braunr> no it's something else
+    <braunr> a deadlock in a critical server
+    <braunr> the root file system maybe
+    <gg0> braunr: htop and ps hang. just run the test once again
+    <gg0> now you should still be able to login
+    <braunr> htop/ps hanging means one process is unable to reply to queries
+      sent to the message port/thread
+    <braunr> procfs does that to report on what a process is waiting
+    <braunr> it usually mean there is a bug around signals, since the message
+      thread is also in charge of delivering signals
+    <braunr> use ps -eM
+    <braunr> and kill -KILL
+    <braunr> hum
+    <braunr> root       954 S<o   0:00.05 /hurd/crash --dump-core
+    <braunr> dumping cores is known not to work most of the time
+    <braunr> exodar shouldn't be configured like that
+    <braunr> so yes, the crash server is hanging
+    <braunr> gg0: i've set it to crash --kill and killed the hanging crash
+      instances blocking top/ps
+    <gg0> nice
+
+    <braunr> my thread destruction patch and tls are indeed conflicting a bit
+    <braunr> i suspect the tcb is used after being freed
+    <braunr> i think i'll simply recycle the tcb, along with the pthread
+      structs
+    <braunr> ok i think it's fine now
+    <braunr> there was also a small bug in the tls code, keeping a reference on
+      the thread port
+    <braunr> mach reference counting is so counter intuitive :/
+    <braunr> well, error-prone
+
+    <braunr> argh, more bugs in libc :(
+    <teythoon> :/
+    <teythoon> but don't worry, there is always one more bug ;)
+    <braunr> this one might explain crashes that are long to trigger
+    <braunr> _hurd_self_sigstate() is implemented like this :
+      _hurd_thread_sigstate (__mach_thread_self ());
+    <braunr> it leaks a reference on the current thread each time it's called
+    <teythoon> >,<
+    <braunr> but glibc maintains such references, so if the maximum value is
+      reached, and references are dropped, the value can reach 0
+    <teythoon> ouch
+    <braunr> at which point any call on a thread will result in an invalid send
+      right
+    <braunr> and probably an assertion
+    <teythoon> well it's a good thing then that you found it :)
+    <braunr> i think it's always been there
+    <braunr> but it's more apparent since jknoenig's patch on signal
+      dispositions
+    <braunr> the maximum number of user references in mach is 64k
+    <braunr> this right leak isn't easy
+    <braunr> tls is very tricky heh :)
+    <braunr> for the main thread, tls initialization happens after the thread
+      creation, obviously
+    <braunr> but for other threads, it's initialized before starting them
+    <braunr> the leak was probably an overlook caused by that complexity
+    <braunr> teythoon: actually that leak i mentioned in _hurd_self_sigstate
+      has only been recently added in Convert sigstate to TLS
+    <braunr> so it's merely tls integration polishing
+    <braunr> youpi: i'm currently reviewing changes related to tls and i think
+      there is a bug in _hurd_self_sigstate
+    <braunr> calls to mach_thread_self() should be paired with
+      mach_port_deallocate to avoid urefs overflows
+    <braunr> and right leaks
+    <braunr> _hurd_critical_section_lock is probably affected too
+    <braunr> hm
+    <braunr> mhmm
+    <braunr> in glibc, hurd/hurd/signal.h, _hurd_critical_section_lock
+    <braunr> why is the sigstate unlocked after the call to
+      _hurd_thread_sigstate
+    <braunr> _hurd_thread_sigstate doesn't seem to lock it ..
+    <braunr> unless __spin_lock_init does it
+    <braunr> yes, leak solved :)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-16
+
+    <braunr> argh, _hurd_critical_section_lock is called before the send right
+      on the main thread is fetched in libpthread :/
+    <teythoon> is that bad ?
+    <braunr> the sigstate is supposed to be initialized after pthreads
+    <braunr> _hurd_critical_section_lock will create it if it sees there is
+      none
+    <braunr> creating the sigstate is currently what makes the send right leak
+    <teythoon> ok
+    <teythoon> it's bad then
+    <braunr> it may be due to my patch
+    <braunr> _hurd_critical_section_lock is called during pthreads
+      initializatio
+    <braunr> n
+    <braunr> before the sigstate for the main thread is created, but after the
+      pthread init routine is called
+    <braunr> it does indeed look like the code wasn't written with thread being
+      destroyed some day in mind :/
+    <teythoon> braunr: btw, if you ever feel like benchmarking, sysbench has a
+      benchmark for threads contending for a lock
+    <braunr> yes i've used it before
+    <teythoon> was it useful for this purpose ?
+    <braunr> no :)
+    <teythoon> :/
+    <braunr> we already know libpthread isn't optimized
+    <braunr> and felt it when we switched from cthreads
+    <braunr> humpf
+    <braunr> simply calling malloc implies a call to
+      _hurd_critical_section_lock
+    <braunr> on the other hand, unlike what some glibc comments say, this does
+      work
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-17
+
+    <braunr> looks like i've fixed all leak issues with thread destruction and
+      tls :)
+    <braunr> let's see if ext2fs.static works fine too
+    <youpi> braunr: \o/
+    <youpi> sorry about introducing the tls ones :)
+    <braunr> no worries, it was expected
+    <braunr> and tls was really needed :)
+    <braunr> i mean, i expected to have some problems when rebasing on tls :p
+    <teythoon> braunr: this is good news, how is your rootfs translator holding
+      up?
+    <braunr> building hurd packages right now
+    <braunr> for now, only test applications and a few really multithreaded
+      ones (e.g. iceweasel) have been tested
+    <braunr> well, the system boots :)
+    <teythoon> awesome :)
+    <braunr> stressing the file system with git while watching youtube videos
+      with gnash doesn't make the system crash
+    <teythoon> you can actually watch yt videos on your Hurd box ?
+    <braunr> yes
+    <braunr> for a while now
+    <teythoon> o_O
+    <braunr> can't you ?
+    <teythoon> I never even dared to try
+    <braunr> hehe
+    <braunr> teythoon: looks stable enough to install on darnassus
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-18
+
+    <teythoon> braunr: wrt to your thread destruction patchset, I thought you
+      also had to fix the proc server ?
+    <braunr> teythoon: no
+    <braunr> the problem was in glibc
+    <braunr> i may have to fix proc/procfs though, because cpu time gets wrong
+      with the patch
+    <braunr> currently, it's the addition of the cpu time of all threads
+    <braunr> mach provides aggregate times including destroyed threads though
+    <teythoon> ah, I see
+    <braunr> one side effect is that you'll see processes sometimes taking 100%
+      of cpu time although the cpu is unused
+    <braunr> or the cpu time of a process gets reduced :)
+    <braunr> i guess the 100% cpu is how top sees a negative increment
+    <teythoon> ^^
+    <braunr> gg0: do my threadterm packages help with ruby1.9 ?
+    <braunr> i mean, can you test with them some time ? :)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-21
+
+    <braunr> youpi: ping about my question regarding error handling in the
+      proposed thread_terminate_release call
+    <youpi> I agree with what Neal said
+    <braunr> he didn't say anything about error handling
+    <braunr> see
+      http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2013-11/msg00181.html
+    <braunr> i think i should make the call fail on first error
+    <braunr> it shouldn't happen, so it would merely serve to catch bugs
+    <braunr> it's not easily recoverable (if it's recoverable at all)
+    <youpi> uh, I thought he had
+    <youpi> I must have dreamt
+
+    <braunr> i think i'll go ahead with thread destruction integration
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-25
+
+    <braunr> i've pushed the thread destruction patches for gnumach upstream
+    <braunr> and made a branch in glibc for that too
+    <teythoon> awesome :)
+    <braunr> youpi: i don't remember how glibc changes should be managed
+    <braunr> once those are applied, i'll commit in libpthread
+    <youpi> braunr: usually we create a topgit branch, and then we add the
+      patch from that to the debian repository
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-29
+
+    <braunr> youpi: i still have a leak somewhere with the thread destruction
+      patches
+    <braunr> maybe on the host priv port in bootstrap servers (root fs and proc
+      server)
+    <braunr> it prevents priority adjusting in libports and can easily bring
+      down a system because servers can start trashing a lot sooner, as it was
+      the case during the pthread migration
+
+See discussion about that on [[/open_issues/libpthread]].
+
+    <braunr> so i'll hunt it down before merging
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-12-19
+
+    <braunr> darnassus still has the libports priority adjustement leaks
+    <braunr> i'll apply a few more patches to my hurd packages
+
+    <braunr> humpf, proc seems to have a problem getting the host priv port :/
+    <teythoon> thats bad
+    <teythoon> what did you do ?
+    <braunr> i fixed all the leaks in libports when adjusting priorities
+    <braunr> the last one being releasing the host priv right
+    <braunr> and i get errors at boot time from the proc server
+    <teythoon> remember when i had this problem ?
+    <braunr> proc doesn't get the host priv port the normal way since the
+      normal way is to get it from proc iirc
+    <teythoon> ah, thought you fixed that
+    <braunr> so i guess the alternate way doesn't add a reference
+    <braunr> well the leak is fixed
+    <braunr> the problem you had was due to the leak which made the host priv
+      port reach its max uref value
+    <braunr> now it's just the proc server
+    <braunr> the system works fine though
+    <teythoon> for real ?
+    <teythoon> the proc server needs the host priv port for getting the new
+      tasks
+    <braunr> well yes
+    <teythoon> how can it work w/o it ?
+    <braunr> i don't know ..
+    <braunr> i guess the problem is internal to glibc
+    <braunr> i mean, get_priv_ports fails, but that doesn't mean the host priv
+      port is lost
+    <teythoon> could be
+    <teythoon> are you running a patched rootfs translator too ?
+    <braunr> yes
+    <teythoon> ok
+    <teythoon> b/c i remember having trouble with that
+    <braunr> right, the glibc call would make proc call __proc_getprivports
+    <braunr> hum
+    <braunr> teythoon: do you remember how proc gets its host priv port ?
+    <teythoon> from init
+    <teythoon> i think
+    <braunr> startup_procinit ?
+    <teythoon> possibly
+    <braunr> right
+    <braunr> so it's probably not the host priv port
+    <braunr> i mean, the error is about another invalid send right
+    <braunr> hm nope, it is on host_priv :/
+    <braunr> hm ok i see, looks like a bug from a debian patch
+    <braunr> or rather, a bug fix not yet imported into the debian package
+    <braunr> teythoon: you actually fixed it in
+      2c9422595f41635e2f4f7ef1afb7eece9001feae
+    <braunr> great :)
+    <teythoon> ah, that one
+    <braunr> i was looking at the upstream code and couldn't understand what
+      was going wrong
+    <braunr> :)
+    <braunr> much better
+    <braunr> except ps -eT doesn't work any more ..
+    <braunr> interestingly, with the thread destruction patch, ps -eT sometimes
+      work, and sometimes doesn't
+    <braunr> the behaviour doesn't seem to change without a reboot
+    <braunr> and of course, as soon as i say it, i'm proven wrong by the next
+      test :)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-12-26
+
+    <braunr> __pthread_sigstate_init doesn't seem to be converted to TLS in the
+      upstream repository master branch
+
+    <braunr> ah dammit, the global signal dispositions patch touches both glibc
+      and libpthread @#!
+    <braunr> what a mess
+
+    <braunr> youpi: do you have some time to quickly review the
+      rbraun/thread_destruction branch in libpthread ?
+    <braunr> there might be conflict with some glibc patches
+    <braunr> or do you prefer it on the mailing list ?
+    <braunr> (i used a branch because it's not based on master)
+    <youpi> rather mail the list, yes
+    <braunr> ok
+    <youpi> it'd also be useful to write the rationale
+    <youpi> probably to be left as comment in the source code
+    <braunr> yes, that branch was for personal storage :)
+    <youpi> so the reader knows how things are recycled or not
+    <braunr> hm
+    <braunr> that should already be the case
+    <youpi> ok
+    <braunr> the two structures that are still recycled are the pthread struct
+      and tls
+    <braunr> it's quite obvious from pthread_alloc
+    <braunr> and well commented there
+    <braunr> for tls, it's explained in pthread_exit
+
+    <braunr> there, thread destruction finally merged in
+    <braunr> and now, we can remove the ugly hacks that were done for
+      threadvars
+    <braunr> :)
+    <braunr> change stacks at will and support all sorts of weird languages and
+      runtimes
+    <teythoon> braunr: cool :)
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-12-31
+
+    <youpi1> braunr: I've added sigstate_locking, sigstate_thread_reference and
+      tls_thread_leak to the debian glibc 2.18 package
+    <youpi1> I believe that's complete?
+    <youpi1> is mach_msg_uspace_options ready for being added? Does it bring
+      much speedup?
+    <youpi1> AIUI, thread_terminate_release is  the union of the branches
+      mentioned above?
+    <youpi1> (I'm cleaning up branches in the glibc repo)
+    <braunr> youpi1: mach_msg_uspace_options can be left over, it only affects
+      selects and not noticeably
+    <braunr> yes, those three branches are the only ones needed for thread
+      destruction
+    <youpi1> ok
+    <youpi> does the hurd changes depend on these changes ?
+    <braunr> no
+    <youpi> good :)
+    <braunr> only on tls for one of them
+    <braunr> (it's about the default stack size of 64k for hurd servers)
+    <youpi> and we have had this in debian for a long time already :)
+    <braunr> yes
+    <youpi> (how big were they before?)
+    <youpi> (where they a couple MiB, and thus exploding to GiBs on thousands
+      of threads?)
+    <braunr> 64k
+    <braunr> pthread stacks are 2M by default
+    <braunr> yes
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-14
+
+    <youpi> braunr: it seems your time change in libps made ps produce odd re
+    <youpi> results
+    <youpi>     samy 10987     5 -514358:-18:-42.17 /hurd/firmlink tmp
+    <braunr> youpi: wow :)
+    <braunr> that change is supposed to run on a system where threads actually
+      get destroyed
+    <braunr> but i don't see what could trigger this side effect
+    <youpi>     root  8629   664 56 years make -j 3
+    <youpi> :)
+    <braunr> heh
+    <braunr> youpi: does the hurd package on darnassus include that patch ?
+    <youpi> yes
+    <braunr> i don't reproduce the problem :/
+    <youpi> err
+    <braunr> what command are you using ?
+    <youpi> ps -feM on darnassus
+    <youpi>     root 29642   473 7 months /usr/sbin/sshd -R
+    <braunr> hmmmm
+    <braunr> i don't see it with a make -j
+    <youpi> well, it's not systematic
+    <youpi> it's like once over two launches
+    <braunr> hhhhmmmmm
+    <youpi> it'd look like some random numbers get added
+    <braunr> strangely, the gcc processes started by a recursive make aren't
+      children of make ..
+    <braunr> ps -eF hurd seems to report the correct values
+    <braunr> even ps -eM
+    <braunr> oO
+    <braunr> ps -ef too
+    <braunr> the problem seems to be with ps -efM
+    <youpi> too bad I'm always using that :)
+    <braunr> another way to see it is that it makes us spot the issue ;p
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-15
+
+    <braunr> ok i have an idea of what goes wrong in libps
+
+    <braunr> youpi: for some reason, ps -efM lacks the PSTAT_TASK_BASIC flag
+    <braunr> my patch is wrong since it doesn't try to determine whether the
+      stats apply to a task or a thread, but that is easy to fix
+    <braunr> ps -efM should nonetheless provide basic task info, obviously
+    <braunr> in addition, the problems i've observed with ps -T (occasional
+      segfaults) seem to have existed before thread destruction
+    <braunr> they're just strongly exposed now that the thread list can be
+      shrunk
+
+    <braunr> libps is quite complicated
+    <braunr> even hairy, i'd say ..
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-16
+
+    <braunr> youpi: i think i have a proper fix for libps
+    <braunr> i'll commit it soon
+    <youpi> ok
+    <braunr> basically, getting system times simply set the PSTAT_THREAD_BASIC
+      flag
+    <braunr> whereas getting the run time of the terminated threads requires
+      PSTAT_TASK_BASIC
+    <braunr> i assumed it was always set in the function i changed when dealing
+      with a task and not a thread
+    <braunr> and well, that was a wrong assumtion, -M can remove it if not
+      strictly needed by the format
+    <braunr> the default format asks for suspend_count, which forces the
+      retrieval of task basic info, os it works with -eM
+    <braunr> but -f doesn't :)
+    <youpi> so extremely bad lucky combination of flags :)
+    <braunr> indeed
+    <braunr> i added a pstat_times using the last (!) available flag bit
+    <braunr> looks clean to me
+    <braunr> i hope there is no abi issue
+    <braunr> (at least everything works with the unmodified ps-hurd executable
+      and a new libps.so)
+
+    <braunr> hm, small bug in the thread destruction patch :/
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-17
+
+    <braunr> good, i have proper fixes for tls in the main thread and thread
+      termination :)
+    <teythoon> awesome :)
+    <teythoon> i've been wondering, what does it take to get the thread
+      destruction stuff into the debian package ?
+    <braunr> i still have to build test packages, look for (unlikely, heh)
+      regressions and work some integration details with samuel
+    <braunr> hum the main thread tls fixup i guess
+    <braunr> youpi was waiting for me to fix that
+    <braunr> gnumach already provides the RPC
+    <braunr> so it will be in glibc soon
+    <braunr> i just have to get those last bits right
+    <braunr> teythoon: i'm quite slow at integrating stuff
+    <teythoon> and samuel then builds packages ?
+    <teythoon> i mean, is our libc package build linked to the other libc
+      packages ?
+    <braunr> libpthread is applied as a patch to glibc
+    <braunr> and loaded as a plugin
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-17
+
+    <braunr> uhm, did we break fakeroot-tcp ?
+    <teythoon> we did ?
+    <youpi> fakeroot-tcp just works fine on buildds
+    <braunr> with fakeroot-tcp, i get
+    <braunr> make[4]: Entering directory
+      `/home/rbraun/devel/debian/packages/hurd/hurd-0.5.git20140113/libdde-linux26/contrib/include'
+    <braunr> rm -f .general.d
+    <braunr> make[4]: *** [cleanall] Killed
+    <braunr> when cleaning the package before building ..
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-18
+
+    <braunr> damn, fakeroot-tcp won't work on darnassus ..
+    <braunr> uh, looks like my tls/thread destruction "fixes" do cause
+      regressions :(
+    <braunr> fakeroot works fine with debian glibc
+    <teythoon> which one ?
+    <teythoon> which fakeroot i mean
+    <braunr> -tcp
+    <braunr> yes, it fails as soon as i use the patched glibc :/
+    <braunr> at least it's easy to reproduce
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-20
+
+    <braunr> great, 3rd libc version installed on darnassus, let's see if i can
+      build hurd packages against that
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-21
+
+    <braunr> damn, fakeroot-tcp still crashes with my latest changes ....
+
+    <braunr> darnassus looks in good shape
+    <braunr> youpi: ^
+    <braunr> youpi: if you have other tests, feel free to do them now
+    <braunr> i feel confident about committing the changes, if you're ok with
+      it
+    <youpi> which changes ?
+    <youpi> I'm a bit lost in what you were talking about :)
+    <braunr> you can find them in 2 patches in /var/tmp on darnassus
+    <braunr> one is about fixing thread destruction
+    <braunr> i'm pretty certain about this one so i'll commit it directly
+    <braunr> the other is fixing the tcb of the main thread
+
+[[open_issues/libpthread]].
+
+    <braunr> where i simply do tcb->self = thread->kernel_thread :)
+    <braunr> with a comment explaining why i don't do something else like
+      deallocating the unused tcb
+    <youpi> braunr: ok, that looks good
+    <teythoon> braunr: awesome :)
+    <braunr> youpi: ok
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-22
+
+    <braunr> there, libpthread should be fine now
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-06
+
+    <braunr> youpi: in case you're planning to upgrade glibc (or not), the
+      thread destruction changes are complete
+    <braunr> youpi: darnassus has been running them for some weeks with no
+      visible regression
+    <youpi> braunr: ok, good
+    <youpi> including it in glibc was on my todo list indeed
+    <youpi> and Adam  indeed plan for a 2.18 upload
+    <braunr> good :)
+    <youpi> braunr: this is up to 7c6dc6e28b2fc4b67934223f41cf080ffe58b230,
+      right? (Wed Jan 22, Fix up the main thread TCB)
+    <braunr> yes
+    <braunr> oh, i just saw 2.17-98~0 glibc packages on debian-ports :)
+    <youpi> yes, it's just to fix the dhcp crash
+    <braunr> ah yes, it's not 2.18
+    <youpi> 2.18 is available in experimental
+
+    <youpi> braunr: just to make sure: did you have
+      983b18a6ff16f5687a9ece63a50d1831dec88609 in libc on darnassus?
+    <youpi> (which drops the stack size  hack)
+    <braunr> youpi: let me check
+    <braunr> youpi: ah no, i don't, you're right
+    <youpi> well, I was just wondering, nothing make me think that was the case
+      :)
+    <youpi> what was the issue that it was raising btw?
+    <braunr> threadvards
+    <youpi> ok, b ut in which case?
+    <youpi> (to make sure I test that before committing)
+    <braunr> now that we switched to tls, i would assume the transition path to
+      be 1/ hurd stops defining that symbol, 2/ libpthread can stop using it
+    <braunr> the goal was to reduce the stack size of hurd server threads
+    <youpi> well, that's not my question :) I'm wondering in which precise case
+      that was breaking things
+    <braunr> youpi: i don't know, it shouldn't break
+    <youpi> ok
+    <braunr> youpi: just in case, don't forget that last one line patch i
+      committed last night, fakeroot can't work right without it
+    <braunr> (i made a minor change while reviewing before comitting, and
+      obviously got it wrong :p)
+    <youpi> ok
+
+    <youpi> braunr: I've upgraded libpthread in debian's eglibc btw
+
+    <braunr>
+      /home/rbraun/devel/debian/packages/eglibc/eglibc-2.17/build-tree/hurd-i386-libc/libc.so.phdr:
+      *** executable stack signaled
+    <braunr> from build-tree/hurd-i386-libc/elf/check-execstack.out
+    <braunr> i thought glibc didn't use those
+    <braunr> anyway it doesn't look to be the regression i'm having
+    <braunr> does this ring a bell :
+    <braunr> Encountered regressions that don't match expected failures
+      (debian/testsuite-checking/expected-results-i486-gnu-libc):
+    <braunr> test-stpcpy_chk.out, Error 1
+    <braunr> TEST test-stpcpy_chk.out: __stpcpy_chk    normal_stpcpy
+      simple_stpcpy_chk
+    <youpi> nope
+    <youpi> after what are you getting this regression?
+    <braunr> building glibc 2.17-97 with thread destruction patches, including
+      the one removing the stack size hack
+    <braunr> during tests
+    <braunr> there also are "progressions", but i'm not sure what these are
+    <youpi> some progressions are just luck, other seem to happen on some
+      platforms only
+    <youpi> I'm not sure you want to test 2.17
+    <youpi> a lot has changed between 2.17's libpthread and 2.18's libpthread
+      (which is now equal to cvs's libpthread
+    <youpi> )
+    <youpi> s/cvs/git/
+    <braunr> yes
+    <braunr> i usually build with nocheck
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-07
+
+    <braunr> youpi: on a vm with hurd 1:0.5.git20140203-1, upgrading to a
+      patched glibc 2.17-97 that includes the patch which reverts the stack
+      size hack, the system reboots and works fine
+    <youpi> ok. I don't remember what problem I was seeing
+    <braunr> that version of the hurd no longer defines the symbol
+    <braunr> but even then, there shouldn't have been any problem
+    <braunr> hm, or does it
+    <braunr> yes, it does
+    <braunr> youpi: the hurd package patch mentions
+    <braunr> Revert this for now, will have to wait for dropping the use of
+    <braunr> __pthread_stack_default_size from eglibc's
+      libpthread_hurd_cond_wait.diff
+    <braunr> i wonder how it got there
+    <youpi> IIRC I was wondering too
+    <braunr> i've installed my c library on darnassus and it works fine there
+      too
+    <braunr> with older (january) hurd packages
+    <braunr> looks good to me
+
+
+## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-10
+
+    <teythoon> braunr: btw, do the new libc packages contain your thread
+      destruction work ?
+    <braunr> teythoon: the -98 ones on experimental ?
+    <braunr> i don't think they do
+    <braunr> the -18 ones should do