Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 sleep.9
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 02:51:41AM +0000, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> grog 2007-02-27 02:51:41 UTC
>> FreeBSD src repository
>> Modified files:
>> share/man/man9 sleep.9
>> Add warning about deadlocks created by use of wakeup_one.
> +.Fn wakeup_one
> +does not work reliably if more than one process is sleeping on the same
> +in this case it is possible for an unrelated process to be woken.
> +This process will ignore the wakeup, and the correct process will never be
> Is this a bug (that should be fixed), or some fundamental issue with
> wakeup_one() ?
I'm also confused about this addition to the man page -- the sleep/wakeup
model is premised on using a synchronization name space that we, for
convenience, align with the possible pointer value name space. In general,
the approach works because we tie memory ownership to use of a synchronization
address. It sounds like wakeup_one() works entirely reliably, but that some
piece of kernel code is sleeping on an address associated with memory it
doesn't own. This is not a bug on wakeup_one(), it is a bug in a consumer of
the sleep(9) APIs. I'd like to see this change backed out, and replaced with
a note explicitly describing how the uniqueness of sleep/wakeup addresses is
tied to memory allocation, and that improper use of the APIs can result in
consumers behaving unreliably.
Robert N M Watson
University of Cambridge
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 16:51:12 UTC