Regards,
Nicolas
2005/9/13, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
-1 for this patch. Actually, the patch itself is fine - it just
doesn't
fix the problem. The unit tests are still failings as per my previous
messages. ie the following is getting logged in test/logs/error_log:
[Mon Sep 12 19:49:33 2005] [emerg] (2)No such file or directory:
Couldn't create accept lock
Jim
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> Here's a patch (this is against 3.1.2b). Untested. This replaces
GIL
> with with the APR lock.
>
> --- src/mod_python.c.orig Mon Sep 12 16:42:28 2005
> +++ src/mod_python.c Mon Sep 12 17:32:26 2005
> @@ -31,7 +31,9 @@
> * (In a Python dictionary) */
> static PyObject * interpreters = NULL;
>
> +#ifdef APR_HAS_THREAD
> static apr_thread_mutex_t* interpreters_lock = 0;
> +#endif
>
> apr_pool_t *child_init_pool = NULL;
>
> @@ -127,9 +129,8 @@
> if (! name)
> name = MAIN_INTERPRETER;
>
> -#ifdef WITH_THREAD
> +#ifdef APR_HAS_THREAD
> apr_thread_mutex_lock(interpreters_lock);
> - PyEval_AcquireLock();
> #endif
>
> if (!interpreters) {
> @@ -156,8 +157,7 @@
> idata = (interpreterdata *)PyCObject_AsVoidPtr(p);
> }
>
> -#ifdef WITH_THREAD
> - PyEval_ReleaseLock();
> +#ifdef APR_HAS_THREAD
> apr_thread_mutex_unlock(interpreters_lock);
> #endif
>
> @@ -513,8 +513,10 @@
> /* initialze the interpreter */
> Py_Initialize();
>
> -#ifdef WITH_THREAD
> +#ifdef APR_HAS_THREAD
>
>
apr_thread_mutex_create(&interpreters_lock,APR_THREAD_MUTEX_UNNESTED,p);
> +#endif
> +#ifdef WITH_THREAD
> /* create and acquire the interpreter lock */
> PyEval_InitThreads();
> #endif
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
>>
>> Yep, this is getting a little hairy, but nothing we couldn't
handle :-)
>>
>> I did a little more research. Basically, this started with
Graham's
>> patch that addressed a problem with modules being reimported (or
>> something). From Graham's message:
>>
>>>
>>> The basic problem revolves around the Python dictionary used to
hold
>>> the set of interpreters. The code in mod_python.c is trying to
use
>>> the Python GIL to provide exclusive access to that dictionary
and any
>>> subsequent creation of an interpreter.
>>>
>>> The only catch is that in creating a new interpreter, the
Python core
>>> is, in someway I don't understand, swapping thread states at some
>>> point which is allowing other threads to acquire the GIL.
>>>
>>
>> So what Graham's patch does is create an APR lock
(interpreters_lock)
>> and wrap all the access to the dictionary with calls to
>> apr_mutex_lock/unlock.
>>
>> I think the _real_ way to address this issue is to first find
what is
>> the problem with using the Python GIL to serialize access to the
>> interpreters dictionary. Is this a Python bug, or are we not
>> understanding GIL and using it improperly?
>>
>> BUT, given that the above question may be complicated to answer,
and
>> that Graham's patch resolves the issue, another thought:
>>
>> If the APR lock works, what is the point of using the GIL in
addition?
>> Should we just use the APR-based lock alone? I.e., where we had
(after
>> Graham's patch):
>>
>> #ifdef WITH_THREAD
>> apr_thread_mutex_lock(interpreters_lock);
>> PyEval_AcquireLock();
>> #endif
>>
>> we would use:
>>
>> #ifdef APR_HAS_THREAD
>> apr_thread_mutex_lock(interpreters_lock);
>> #endif
>>
>> _without_ a call to PyEval_AcquireLock() at all.
>>
>> It should compile OK, and on platforms where APR has no thread
>> support, like you said, it's not an issue since no separate
>> interpreters run in one process at the same time.
>>
>> Grisha
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>>
>>> Duh, this is becoming difficult :)
>>>
>>> I was thinking that if APR_HAS_THREADS was 0, then Apache was
>>> forcibly ran
>>> in prefork mode, so there was no need for thread safety at all,
given
>>> the
>>> fact that mod_python would only run one interpreter thread. So if
>>> WITH_THREAD was not defined, ORAPR_HAS_THREADS was 0, then we
would
>>> not need
>>> any thread safety code. Hence the definition of
>>> MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD_SUPPORT.
>>>
>>> You're right in writing that a user could launch a new thread
in Python,
>>> provided that WITH_THREAD is defined, even if APR_HAS_THREADS==0.
>>> However,
>>> having a look at the parts of mod_python.c where the thread
safety
>>> was put
>>> in, I think we can safely say that those parts are only called by
>>> mod_python
>>> (through python_handler, python_cleanup etc who call
>>> get_interpreter). Those
>>> parts are therefore always called in the same thread (if
>>> APR_HAS_THREADS==0,
>>> that is) and there is no need for thread synchronization to be
done (no
>>> shared data between the main thread and the other user threads,
no
>>> need to
>>> release the GIL etc.).
>>>
>>> BUT, I could be very, very wrong here, and your idea of
reverting to a
>>> conservative "shield python threading calls with WITH_THREAD
and apr
>>> threading code with APR_HAS_THREADS" is way more attractive to my
>>> tired mind
>>> right now. So if you want I can revert all this
>>> MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD_SUPPORT hack.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>> 2005/9/12, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand this, perhaps someone could write a
>>>> message to
>>>> the list explaining what we're doing here so there is a record.
>>>> Sorry if
>>>> I'm being slow-headed here.
>>>>
>>>> To me it seems that when you use thread-related calls from
Python, you
>>>> wrap those in Python defines (WITH_THREAD) and when you use
>>>> thread-related
>>>> calls from APR, you wrap those in APR defines
(APR_HAS_THREAD), and
>>>> that's
>>>> all?
>>>>
>>>> In other words - what does MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD_SUPPORT
accomplish
>>>> that
>>>> the above does not.
>>>>
>>>> Also, given:
>>>>
>>>> #if(defined(WITH_THREAD) && APR_HAS_THREADS)
>>>> #define MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD_SUPPORT 1
>>>> #else
>>>> #define MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD_SUPPORT 0
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that if Python is compiled with thread support
and
>>>> APR is
>>>> not, MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD_SUPPORT is 0 which means that the
thread
>>>> safety code isn't there, but you still _can_ create threads
because
>>>> Python
>>>> will let you - isn't this asking for a
segfault/deadlock/whatever?
>>>>
>>>> Grisha
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't that be PYTHON_WITH_THREAD rather than
>>>>
>>>> MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand it to mean that we want the thread handling code
compiled
>>>>
>>>> into
>>>>
>>>>> mod_python.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compiling and testing right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've checked in a changeset wherein I define
>>>>>>> MOD_PYTHON_WITH_THREAD_SUPPORT
>>>>>>> and use it everywhere WITH_THREAD was previously used. This
>>>>>>> should do
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> trick ! Now if someone (like Jim) can give us his +1, that
would be
>>>>>>> great.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2005/9/12, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just wanted to add to this message that if Jim's version
runs and
>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>> with the trick below (envvars is executed prior to apache
start,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>
>>>> I
>>>>
>>>>>>>> don't think the tests use it, so you'll probably just have
to set
>>>>
>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>>>>> var
>>>>>>>> in the shell in which the tests are run), then this would be
a
>>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>> for all FreeBSD issues and we could roll a beta 3 which
will have a
>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>> change of being publicly released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Grisha
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, found it. This should work on FreeBSD where Python is
threaded
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, if you built apache without thread support, you may
need
>>>>>>>>> to add
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> following lines to $PREFIX/sbin/envvars:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libc_r.so
>>>>>>>>> export LD_PRELOAD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *** Warning: Linking the shared library mod_python.la
against
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> *** static library
>>>>>>>>>>> /usr/local/lib/python2.4/config/libpython2.4.a is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> portable!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think this was always there and its pretty harmless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On qemu:
>>>>>>>>>>> Syntax error on line 44 of
>>>>>>>>>>> /usr/home/jim/tmp/mod_python/test/conf/test.conf:
>>>>>>>>>>> Cannot load
/usr/home/jim/tmp/mod_python/src/mod_python.so into
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> server:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /usr/home/jim/tmp/mod_python/src/mod_python.so:
Undefined symbol
>>>>>>>>>>> "pthread_attr_init"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is because FreeBSD's libc comes in two versions -
threaded
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> non-threaded. If Python is linked against the threaded
ones and
>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>> against the non-thrreaded, then you get this problem.
There is a
>>>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>>>> fix for this - you just cause Apache to start with
threaded libs,
>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>> can't find any references to it right now and have to
run off
>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Grisha
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is quite possible I don't have things configured
correctly on
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> QEMU version and hence the different undefined symbol
but it
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> really matter since it fails either way. I don't have
time to
>>>>>>>>>>> investigate further right now. I'll revisit this tonight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>>>>>>> #if APR_HAS_THREADS && defined(WITH_THREAD)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2005/9/11, Jim Gallacher < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, I found the following note in the INSTALL file in
the
>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>> source:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * If you are building on FreeBSD, be aware that
threads will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be disabled and the prefork MPM will be used by default,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as threads do not work well with Apache on FreeBSD. If
>>>>>>>>>>>> you wish to try a threaded Apache on FreeBSD anyway, use
>>>>>>>>>>>> "./configure --enable-threads".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also setting up FreeBSD under QEMU... so far so
good, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> installing
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything using ports is really slow. QEMU's
performance here
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> killing me. I guess I should have read the manual
first and
>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> binary packages for the software I wanted to install.
:-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I've checked in a version that compiles both on at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Win32 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FreeBSD. I'm just testing if APR_HAS_THREAD is
defined and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include the apr_thread_mutex_lock and unlock calls
if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compiles a passes unit tests on Linux Debian sid with
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mpm-prefork.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, on minotaur, APR_HAS_THREAD is defined as 0. Does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache is not configured for threading ? Can we assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the prefork model if APR_HAS_THREAD==0, so that we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skip
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locking code ? Because that's what we do right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Debian sid with apache2.0.54 mpm-prefork,
APR_HAS_THREAD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2005/9/11, Nicolas Lehuen < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this new code is something I commited on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 29/12/2004
>>>>>>>>>>>> (I used
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "blame" function of TortoiseSVN for that). It was
a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> patch by
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham to fix MODPYTHON-2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-2>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is not in the patch, but rather in the
fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> APR
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems configured without the thread support while
Python
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configured with thread support. mod_python.c assumes
that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH_THREAD is defined, then the APR mutex functions
are
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> available,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is wrong. Maybe we should test for
APR_HAS_THREADS
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> instead ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, won't this cause any problems on
threaded
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if this is a problem specific to
minotaur or
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of FreeBSD. I'm currently downloading the
ISOs of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FreeBSD
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'll try using QEMU to run a FreeBSD setup on my
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> computer, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that will be long and troublesome. If someone has more
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> clue
>>>>>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, feel free to tell us :).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2005/9/10, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm stubling around in the dark here, but maybe this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an idea. I took a diff of mod_python.c from
3.1.4 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2.1b and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isolated the lines which correspond to the
compilation
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compiler messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c:34: error: syntax error before '*' token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c:34: warning: type defaults to `int' in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> declaration of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `interpreters_lock'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c:34: warning: data definition has no
type or
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> storage class
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c: In function `get_interpreter':
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c:131: warning: implicit declaration of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `apr_thread_mutex_lock'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c:161: warning: implicit declaration of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `apr_thread_mutex_unlock'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c: In function `python_init':
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c:517: warning: implicit declaration of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `apr_thread_mutex_create'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mod_python.c:517: error: `APR_THREAD_MUTEX_UNNESTED'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> undeclared (first
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use in this function)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diff output
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've only copied the diff chunks which correspond
to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> complier
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- mod_python-3.1.4/src/mod_python.c Sat Jan 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13:25:28
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ mod_python- 3.2.1b/src/mod_python.c Tue Sep 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17:11:03
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * (In a Python dictionary) */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static PyObject * interpreters = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static apr_thread_mutex_t* interpreters_lock = 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apr_pool_t *child_init_pool = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -124,11 +128,15 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name = MAIN_INTERPRETER;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ifdef WITH_THREAD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + apr_thread_mutex_lock(interpreters_lock);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PyEval_AcquireLock();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -149,6 +158,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ifdef WITH_THREAD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PyEval_ReleaseLock();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + apr_thread_mutex_unlock(interpreters_lock);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -490,13 +506,15 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /* initialize global Python interpreter if
necessary */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - if (! Py_IsInitialized())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (initialized == 0 || !Py_IsInitialized())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + initialized = 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /* initialze the interpreter */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Py_Initialize();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ifdef WITH_THREAD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
apr_thread_mutex_create(&interpreters_lock,APR_THREAD_MUTEX_UNNESTED,p);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /* create and acquire the interpreter lock */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PyEval_InitThreads();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it would seem that the code causing the compile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is new
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 3.2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also notice that in apr_arch_thread_mutex.h the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apr_thread_mutex_t is wrapped by #if APR_HAS_THREADS
/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> #endif.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at the apache source in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> srclib/apr/locks/unix/thread_mutex.c,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything is also enclosed by #if APR_HAS_THREADS /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #endif.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eg, apr_thread_mutex_create, apr_thread_mutex_lock
and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apr_thread_mutex_unlock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully this will give someone a clue as to what
may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> going on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with FreeBSD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
