Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:49:37 -0500 | From | george@moberg ... | Subject | Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land programmer... |
| |
Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > george@moberg.com writes: > > > Can we _PLEASE_PLEASE_PLEASE_ not do this anymore and have the kernel do > > what BSD does: re-start the interrupted call? > > This is crap. Returning EINTR is necessary for many applications. > > -- > ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace > Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA > Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
After reading about SA_RESTART, ok. However, couldn't those applications that require it enable this behaviour explicitly?
The problem I'm having right now is with pthread_create() failing because deep somewhere in either the kernel or glibc, nanosleep() returns EINTR during said pthread_create() and pthread_create() fails.
I've got a multithreaded program written using gcc (2.95.2) and glibc (2.1.3), and it's talking to a natively threaded Java program (tried both Sun & Blackdown ports, both 1.2.2 and 1.3) on a 2.2.17 kernel. The C program is listening for incoming socket connections, and the Java program is hammering on it with many parallel connect() calls. After a short, a bit random interval, pthread_create() will fail in either my program, or deep in the Java VM. I assume that the Java VM is using pthread_create().
I don't mean to sound like a psycho on this, but I can't see why SA_RESTART isn't the default behavior. Maybe I'm missing something somewhere. -- George T. Talbot <george at moberg dot com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |