From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <019f01c41c47$c8385fd0$8201a8c0@cc77109e>
From: "Bruce Ellis" <brucee@chunder.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <015701c41c3d$7c209770$8201a8c0@cc77109e> <20040407014056.GA30936@mero.morphisms.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] notify woe
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed,  7 Apr 2004 12:16:04 +1000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 53f5efaa-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

i believe this bug to be simply that a (in this case single threaded)
program is interrupted holding the malloc pool lock. the notify
function indirectly calls malloc. sleep time.

brucee
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Josephson" <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] notify woe


> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:10:38AM +1000, Bruce Ellis wrote:
> > gee, don't call malloc from a notify function, this is from mk ...
> > 
> > actually don't call wait, or any library function that allocates,
> > from a notify function.  how's my timing in interrupting a malloc?
> 
> I seem to recall stumbling over that one a year or two
> ago and mentioning it to the list or 9trouble.  Actually,
> I think it was a race for the malloc lock, perhaps, that
> could cause a deadlock in the thread library at interrupt
> time.  Similar issue in any case...