[Ace-users] [ace-users] ACE_Process_Manager problem
Douglas C. Schmidt
schmidt at dre.vanderbilt.edu
Sun Nov 25 21:31:54 CST 2007
hi Oliver,
> here are two patches for Process_Manager.cpp and Process_Manager_Test.cpp. The test fails with the 5.6.1 version of Process_Manager and succeeds with the patched one.
> I could only test this with Linux.
Ok, sounds good. I've added your patches!
Thanks,
Doug
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: schmidt at dre.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:schmidt at dre.vanderbilt.edu]
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. November 2007 22:50
> > An: Spang, Oliver (NSN - DE/Bruchsal)
> > Cc: ace-users at cs.wustl.edu
> > Betreff: Re: [ace-users] ACE_Process_Manager problem
> >
> >
> > Hi Oliver,
> >
> > Thanks for using the PRF!
> >
> > > ACE VERSION: 5.6.1
> > >
> > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM:
> > > Linux, Fedora Core 5
> > >
> > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST:
> > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL):
> > >
> > > THE $ACE_ROOT/ace/config.h FILE
> > > config_linux.h
> > >
> > > THE $ACE_ROOT/include/makeinclude/platform_macros.GNU FILE
> > > platform_linux.GNU
> > >
> > > SYNOPSIS:
> > > Problem spawning process with ACE_Process_Manager while
> > waiting for end
> > > of another process
> > >
> > > DESCRIPTION:
> > > I spawn several processes using ACE_Process_Manager. The problem is,
> > > while I wait() for a process, further spawn()'s won't return.
> > >
> > > REPEAT BY:
> > > I tracked this down to the following ACE code:
> > > in Process_Manager.cpp, spawn(), we have (line 446...):
> > > pid_t const pid = process->spawn (options);
> > >
> > > // Only include the pid in the parent's table.
> > > if (pid == ACE_INVALID_PID || pid == 0)
> > > return pid;
> > >
> > > ACE_MT (ACE_GUARD_RETURN (ACE_Recursive_Thread_Mutex,
> > > ace_mon, this->lock_, -1));
> > >
> > > if (this->append_proc (process, event_handler) == -1)
> > > // bad news: spawned, but not registered in table.
> > > return ACE_INVALID_PID;
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > > ------------
> > > in Process_Manager.cpp, wait(), we have (line 789...):
> > > ACE_MT (ACE_GUARD_RETURN (ACE_Recursive_Thread_Mutex, ace_mon,
> > > this->lock_, -1));
> > >
> > > if (pid != 0)
> > > {
> > > idx = this->find_proc (pid);
> > > if (idx == -1)
> > > return ACE_INVALID_PID;
> > > else
> > > proc = process_table_[idx].process_;
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (proc != 0)
> > > pid = proc->wait (timeout, status);
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > > -------------
> > >
> > > This means, spawn() tries to acquire this->lock_, which is
> > already hold
> > > by wait().
> > > Is this the way, ACE_Process_Manager should work?
> > > Isn't it possible to release the lock_ after the access to the
> > > process_table (find_proc()), and acquire it again after the wait()?
> >
> > That's certainly worth a try. Could you please
> >
> > . Make those changes and send us patches?
> >
> > . Update the ACE_ROOT/tests/Process_Manager_Test.cpp file to test for
> > the usecase that's failing for you so we'll have a
> > regression test for
> > this in the future?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > >
> > > SAMPLE FIX/WORKAROUND:
> > > My workaround is to wait with this code, not very nice ;-)
> > > while ((iResult=ACE_Process_Manager::instance ()->wait
> > (iProcessId,
> > > TIME_100ms, &t_Status)==0))
> > > {
> > > ACE_Thread::yield ();
> > > }
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ace-users mailing list
> > > ace-users at mail.cse.wustl.edu
> > > http://mail.cse.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/ace-users
> >
More information about the Ace-users
mailing list