Bug #6822
closed
Race Condition with Fiber and Process
Added by MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) over 12 years ago.
Updated about 12 years ago.
Description
If I run the following code
$stdout.sync = true
objects = [1, 2, 3]
fiber = Fiber.new do
loop do
objects.each { |obj| Fiber.yield(obj) }
end
end
def run(obj)
fork do
puts obj
end
end
def on_child_exit(obj)
begin
while Process.wait(-1, Process::WNOHANG)
run(obj)
end
rescue Errno::ECHILD
end
end
trap(:CHLD) { on_child_exit(fiber.resume) }
4.times { run(fiber.resume) }
sleep
I get
fiber_process.rb:26:in `resume': double resume (FiberError)
or
fiber_process.rb:26:in `resume': fiber called across stack rewinding barrier (FiberError)
There is a race condition when two or more children exit. Now I know I can implement
this differently, but this still made me curious. Is this a bug? Let's say I would
need to use a Fiber, then there is no way how I can do the synchronization manually,
or is there? Using a Mutex to synchronize the Fiber#resume will fail due to the
non-reentrant behaviour of Mutex#lock (I'll get "in `lock': deadlock; recursive
locking (ThreadError)"). Is there a way to do this or should Fibers not be used in
this context?
- Category changed from core to YARV
- Status changed from Open to Assigned
- Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
- Category changed from YARV to core
- Status changed from Assigned to Closed
In general, you can sync with variables because Fibers are not changed automatically. In other words, you can completely control Fiber transition.
ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:
In general, you can sync with variables because Fibers are not changed automatically. In other words, you can completely control Fiber transition.
Thanks for looking into this. With your input, I found a way to safely synchronize the exiting childs by using Mutex#try_lock. Thank you!
(2012/09/21 22:14), MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) wrote:
Issue #6822 has been updated by MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet).
ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:
In general, you can sync with variables because Fibers are not changed automatically. In other words, you can completely control Fiber transition.
Thanks for looking into this. With your input, I found a way to safely synchronize the exiting childs by using Mutex#try_lock. Thank you!
No. You don't need Mutex at all.
You only need to use variables (such as global variables).
--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net
ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:
No. You don't need Mutex at all.
You only need to use variables (such as global variables).
Now I'm confused. How would I write the example code without getting the FiberErrors? Since I have no control over when a child process exits, I can't control when the 'trap(:CHLD)' block calls Fiber#resume, no? I thought I would have to do some form of manual synchronization there, to avoid the race condition. Sorry to bug you :)
(2012/09/22 15:45), MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) wrote:
No. You don't need Mutex at all.
You only need to use variables (such as global variables).
Now I'm confused. How would I write the example code without getting the FiberErrors? Since I have no control over when a child process exits, I can't control when the 'trap(:CHLD)' block calls Fiber#resume, no? I thought I would have to do some form of manual synchronization there, to avoid the race condition. Sorry to bug you :)
Now, I understand your issue. This is not a Fiber problem, but
concurrency problem with signal.
I recommend that you shouldn't use Fiber.resume in a trap handler. In
the trap handler, you should only set a flag and make flag sense in main.
--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net
ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:
Now, I understand your issue. This is not a Fiber problem, but
concurrency problem with signal.
I recommend that you shouldn't use Fiber.resume in a trap handler. In
the trap handler, you should only set a flag and make flag sense in main.
Thanks for the advice, I will do that! Thanks for bearing with me ;)
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0