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