Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:45:53 +0200 From: Christophe Yayon <lists@nbux.com> To: Christophe Yayon <lists@nbux.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nagios and freebsd threads issue : help please ... Message-ID: <43083131.4010407@nbux.com> In-Reply-To: <4306DA96.8000904@nbux.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0508191630140.12955-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <4306DA96.8000904@nbux.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi again, I just upgraded again to FreeBSD5.4-Stable of August 20 and, i just killed a nagios loop process which consume 100% of CPU... The problem seems to persist again... How do think about this ? Thanks in advance. Christophe Yayon wrote: > Daniel, > > > But i am in stable '5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #4: Tue Jul 5 > 11:18:14 CEST 2005' and i have again the problem ... > The post is from Jun 22... I don't understant why i have again the > problem ? > Could u help me, please ? > > Thanks. > > Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote: >> >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> You should know about freebsd and nagios 2.0b threads issues (100% cpu >>> use by a forked process, lost check result, some pause of nagios main >>> process in certains obscursives conditions...). >>> >>> Some Nagios developpers says that the problem is in FreeBSD and some >>> other says that the problem is in nagios pthreads implementation, here a >>> resume of our discussions : >>> From >>> >>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_atfork.html >>> >>> >>> "It is suggested that programs that use fork() call an exec function >>> very soon afterwards in the child process, thus resetting all >>> states. In >>> the meantime, only a short list of async-signal-safe library routines >>> are promised to be available." >>> >>> Note *suggested*. This is a recommendation to protect against a shoddy >>> pthread-implementation. The thread specifications rule that only the >>> thread calling fork() is duplicated, which initially leads to the >>> recommendation (other threads holding locks aren't around to release >>> them in the new execution context). >> >> >> >> They choose to quote a weak reference to the actual requirement. >> The standard says (in the fork() section): >> >> A process shall be created with a single thread. If a >> multi-threaded process calls fork(), the new process shall >> contain a replica of the calling thread and its entire address >> space, possibly including the states of mutexes and other >> resources. Consequently, to avoid errors, the child process may >> only execute async-signal-safe operations until such time as one >> of the exec functions is called. Fork handlers may be >> established by means of the pthread_atfork() function in order >> to maintain application invariants across fork() calls. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43083131.4010407>