diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/libpthread')
| -rw-r--r-- | open_issues/libpthread/t/fix_have_kernel_resources.mdwn | 1301 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1301 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/libpthread/t/fix_have_kernel_resources.mdwn b/open_issues/libpthread/t/fix_have_kernel_resources.mdwn deleted file mode 100644 index 02b6ab05..00000000 --- a/open_issues/libpthread/t/fix_have_kernel_resources.mdwn +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1301 +0,0 @@ -[[!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 |