From: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com> To: Leonid Vasiliev <lvasiliev@tarantool.org> Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] Add a cancellation guard to cpipe flush callback Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:27:06 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20191205072706.GA16690@atlas> (raw) In-Reply-To: <65b9d108-fe36-1c9b-82c0-60e98efce658@tarantool.org> * Leonid Vasiliev <lvasiliev@tarantool.org> [19/12/05 10:24]: > On 12/3/19 9:02 PM, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > > * Leonid Vasiliev <lvasiliev@tarantool.org> [19/12/03 19:36]: > > > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4127 > > > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/lvasiliev/gh-4127-WAL-thread-stucks > > > > Looks like a great catch. > > > > > We need to set a thread cancellation guard, because > > > another thread may cancel the current thread > > > (write() is a cancellation point in ev_async_send) > > > and the activation of the ev_async watcher > > > through ev_async_send will fail. > > > > I still don't get from the explanation why it is relevant that > > ev_async_send mustn't fail? > > The cause of why the ev_async_send mustn't fail is unwanted behavior of the > tarantool instance. For example: first thread flush cpipe input to a > endpoint output and go away while trying to call ev_async_send (write() - > cancellation point). Now stailq_empty(&endpoint->output) is false. After > that, another thread flush cpipe input to the same endpoint, but it didn't > try to call ev_async_send, because output_was_empty is false. As result: a > thread of endpoint->consumer didn't wake-up (blocked on epoll_wait). The > same situation described in > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4127: > Looks like an explanation that deserves to be in a comment prior to pthread_setcancelstate(). The issue is, however, if a thread is cancelled and disappears before deregistering from cbus, a lot of other bad things will happen - because all of its registration entries will sit there. The memory, luckily, will not go away, but I am not sure anyone but the creating thread can deregister the memory structures safaly. Looks like this could be covered with a unit test, what do you think? > at main thread: > from void wal_free(void): > cbus_stop_loop(&writer->wal_pipe); > if (cord_join(&writer->cord)) {...} // wait the "wal" thread > > at "wal" thread: > don't try to call cbus_stop_loop_f (for the reasons described above) > blocked at epoll_wait() > > > > > -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-05 7:27 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-12-03 16:33 Leonid Vasiliev 2019-12-03 18:02 ` Konstantin Osipov 2019-12-05 7:22 ` Leonid Vasiliev 2019-12-05 7:27 ` Konstantin Osipov [this message] 2019-12-23 12:44 ` Leonid Vasiliev 2019-12-23 12:55 ` Konstantin Osipov 2019-12-24 15:27 ` Leonid Vasiliev 2019-12-24 15:33 ` Konstantin Osipov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20191205072706.GA16690@atlas \ --to=kostja.osipov@gmail.com \ --cc=lvasiliev@tarantool.org \ --cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] Add a cancellation guard to cpipe flush callback' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox