Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>,
	Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v8 2/2] fiber: leak slab if unable to bring prots back
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:26 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200220210026.tdicjidbhky3guvu@tkn_work_nb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200214143135.GZ21061@uranus>

Guys, please don't remove me from CC in discussions, where I
participated.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:31:35PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:29:19PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> > > 
> > > As far as I understand we gonna drop guard pages for release
> > > builds only, for debug builds it will be with us, no?
> > 
> > Panic in debug is ok.
> 
> Thanks for clarification, Kostya! I'll rework the series once time permit.

We using guard page for a long time (f3155daa 'Add a guard page to the
end fiber stack', 2015) and reconsidering the approach as well as
reimplementation may took significant time, may be stuck due to some
reason or be rejected (for debug builds or at all). It also requires
laborious performance testing. I propose to don't block this bugfix.

For panic on debug: it is okay, but not good, when we able to operate
further. In some rare cases it may even affect customers, when we're
working with them to catch a problem on a debug build and it spins on
some part of production servers under load for a while.

When we detect that we made something wrong, assertion fail looks good.
When we detect that a system resource is exhausted and we able to
proceed with this situation w/o data corruption, it is better to do the
same thing in both release and debug builds.

WBR, Alexander Turenko.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-20 21:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-14 13:22 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v8 0/2] fiber: Handle stack madvise/mprotect errors Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-02-14 13:22 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v8 1/2] fiber: set diagnostics at madvise/mprotect failure Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-02-20 21:30   ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-02-14 13:22 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v8 2/2] fiber: leak slab if unable to bring prots back Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-02-14 14:17   ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-02-14 14:22     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-02-14 14:29       ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-02-14 14:31         ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-02-20 21:00           ` Alexander Turenko [this message]
2020-02-21  7:15             ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-02-24 19:25 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v8 0/2] fiber: Handle stack madvise/mprotect errors Kirill Yukhin
2020-02-24 19:31   ` Cyrill Gorcunov

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=20200220210026.tdicjidbhky3guvu@tkn_work_nb \
    --to=alexander.turenko@tarantool.org \
    --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v8 2/2] fiber: leak slab if unable to bring prots back' \
    /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