On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:30:19PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> > > It's better to have an explict pthread_suspend_[thread,all]() function
> > could this be implemented by having a gc thread in a unique process group
> > and then suspending the jvm process group?
> Suspending how ? via signal ?
yeah SIGSTOP to the jvm process group.
> Possibly, but having an explicit syscall() call is important since interrupts
> are also suspended under that condition, pthread_cond_timedwait(), etc...
> It really needs to be suspended in a way that's different than the SIGSOMETHING
> mechanism. I was fixing bugs in libc_r, so I know the issues to a certain degree
> and bad logic those particular corner cases was screwing me up.
SIGSTOP is different from other signals because it will stop the whole
process group from continuing. i am completely aware of how much of a
pain it is to actually trap signals and do something (for apache 2.0's
design i outlawed the use of signals because of the pains of getting
things working in 1.3.x :).
doesn't the hotspot GC work something like this:
- stop all threads
- go read each thread's $pc, and find its nearest "safety point"
- go overwrite that safety point (YUCK SELF MODIFYING CODE!! :) with
something which will stop the thread
- start the threads and wait for them all to get to their safety points
- perform gc
- undo the above mess
the only part of that which looks challenging with kernel threads is the
$pc reading part... ptrace will certainly get it for you, but that's a
lot of syscall overhead.
or am i missing something?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:32 EST