On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 05:12:59AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the hang occurs during an attempted thread cancel+join. we know from
> strace that one thread calls tgkill() on the other. the other thread is
> blocked in a poll call on a FIFO. after tgkill, the first thread enters a
> futex
> Paul is on vacation for a week so I suspect this will have to wait for
> his return. But he's been right about similar issues in the past so I'm
> inclined to believe him.
>
> In the meantime if anyone cares to investigate, the problem is trivial
> to reproduce. All you need is JACK, XMMS,
Paul is on vacation for a week so I suspect this will have to wait for
his return. But he's been right about similar issues in the past so I'm
inclined to believe him.
In the meantime if anyone cares to investigate, the problem is trivial
to reproduce. All you need is JACK, XMMS, xmms-jack
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 05:12:59AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the hang occurs during an attempted thread cancel+join. we know from
strace that one thread calls tgkill() on the other. the other thread is
blocked in a poll call on a FIFO. after tgkill, the first thread enters a
futex wait,
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 01:34 -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:30:53AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:08 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The most recent messages under "Futex queue_me/get_user
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 15:30 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 04:48 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > I argued for fixing Glibc on the grounds that the changed kernel
> > > behaviour, or more exactly having Glibc depend on it, loses a certain
> > > semantic
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 04:48 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > I argued for fixing Glibc on the grounds that the changed kernel
> > behaviour, or more exactly having Glibc depend on it, loses a certain
> > semantic property useful for unusual operations on multiple futexes at
> >
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 04:48 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
I argued for fixing Glibc on the grounds that the changed kernel
behaviour, or more exactly having Glibc depend on it, loses a certain
semantic property useful for unusual operations on multiple futexes at
the same
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 15:30 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 04:48 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
I argued for fixing Glibc on the grounds that the changed kernel
behaviour, or more exactly having Glibc depend on it, loses a certain
semantic property
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 01:34 -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:30:53AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:08 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Jamie Lokier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most recent messages under Futex queue_me/get_user ordering,
with
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:30:53AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:08 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The most recent messages under "Futex queue_me/get_user ordering",
> > > with a patch from Jakub Jelinek will fix this
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:08 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The most recent messages under "Futex queue_me/get_user ordering",
> > with a patch from Jakub Jelinek will fix this problem by changing the
> > kernel. Yes, you should apply Jakub's most
Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > iirc we ended up deciding that the futex problems around that time were due
> > to userspace problems (a version of libc). But then, there's no discussion
> > around Seto's patch and it didn't get applied. So I don't know what
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 04:48 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> I argued for fixing Glibc on the grounds that the changed kernel
> behaviour, or more exactly having Glibc depend on it, loses a certain
> semantic property useful for unusual operations on multiple futexes at
> the same time. But I appear
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 20:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Paul Davis and Chris Morgan have been chasing down a problem with
> > xmms_jack and it really looks like this bug, thought to have been fixed
> > in 2.6.10, is the culprit.
> >
> >
Andrew Morton wrote:
> iirc we ended up deciding that the futex problems around that time were due
> to userspace problems (a version of libc). But then, there's no discussion
> around Seto's patch and it didn't get applied. So I don't know what
> happened to that work - it's all a bit
Lee Revell wrote:
> > iirc we ended up deciding that the futex problems around that time were due
> > to userspace problems (a version of libc). But then, there's no discussion
> > around Seto's patch and it didn't get applied. So I don't know what
> > happened to that work - it's all a bit
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Paul Davis and Chris Morgan have been chasing down a problem with
> xmms_jack and it really looks like this bug, thought to have been fixed
> in 2.6.10, is the culprit.
>
> http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.0/2044.html
>
> (for more info
Paul Davis and Chris Morgan have been chasing down a problem with
xmms_jack and it really looks like this bug, thought to have been fixed
in 2.6.10, is the culprit.
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.0/2044.html
(for more info google "futex_wait 2.6 hang")
It's simple to
Paul Davis and Chris Morgan have been chasing down a problem with
xmms_jack and it really looks like this bug, thought to have been fixed
in 2.6.10, is the culprit.
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.0/2044.html
(for more info google futex_wait 2.6 hang)
It's simple to
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Davis and Chris Morgan have been chasing down a problem with
xmms_jack and it really looks like this bug, thought to have been fixed
in 2.6.10, is the culprit.
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.0/2044.html
(for more info google
Lee Revell wrote:
iirc we ended up deciding that the futex problems around that time were due
to userspace problems (a version of libc). But then, there's no discussion
around Seto's patch and it didn't get applied. So I don't know what
happened to that work - it's all a bit mysterious.
Andrew Morton wrote:
iirc we ended up deciding that the futex problems around that time were due
to userspace problems (a version of libc). But then, there's no discussion
around Seto's patch and it didn't get applied. So I don't know what
happened to that work - it's all a bit mysterious.
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 20:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Davis and Chris Morgan have been chasing down a problem with
xmms_jack and it really looks like this bug, thought to have been fixed
in 2.6.10, is the culprit.
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 04:48 +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
I argued for fixing Glibc on the grounds that the changed kernel
behaviour, or more exactly having Glibc depend on it, loses a certain
semantic property useful for unusual operations on multiple futexes at
the same time. But I appear to
Jamie Lokier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
iirc we ended up deciding that the futex problems around that time were due
to userspace problems (a version of libc). But then, there's no discussion
around Seto's patch and it didn't get applied. So I don't know what
happened
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:08 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Jamie Lokier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most recent messages under Futex queue_me/get_user ordering,
with a patch from Jakub Jelinek will fix this problem by changing the
kernel. Yes, you should apply Jakub's most recent patch,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:30:53AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:08 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Jamie Lokier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most recent messages under Futex queue_me/get_user ordering,
with a patch from Jakub Jelinek will fix this problem by changing
28 matches
Mail list logo
