X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Bryan D. Thomas" <cinder_bdt AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject:	Re: "fork problem" debugging
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2006 05:10:26 -0700
Lines:	43
Message-ID:	<e4ho3s$fqe$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<20060518023929 DOT 65449 DOT qmail AT web31310 DOT mail DOT mud DOT yahoo DOT com> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0605172342490 DOT 19815 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

"Igor Peshansky" wrote:
> I've been plagued by these problems for a while (since you didn't provide
> full links in your message, I don't know whether you cited my message
> among them without a lot of cutting-and-pasting).

I didn't cite your message[1], though it was one of the sources of the 
suggestion to factor out antivirus and firewall software.  Thanks for that. 
Also, I will use full links from now on, since my mail software seems to 
wrap the lines haphazardly no matter how I try to trim them.

> unloading and reloading just Cygwin1.dll (by
> exiting all Cygwin processes) fixes the problem for me (until the next
> time I run that resource-intensive script that reproduces the problem).

This workaround is effective for me, also.

> a patch (attached) that makes it print out more of the seemingly relevant
> information

If I understand the patch correctly, it changes fork.cc and pinfo.cc in 
winsup/cygwin. Those who wish to use it would download the winsup-src 
snapshot package, apply this patch, then compile a new cygwin1.DLL something 
like [2]?

> I can say that I've been running with
> SharedSection=2048,6144,1024 (double my original values), which had no
> noticeable effect on the frequency of the fork errors (i.e., I still get
> them reproducibly).

Thank you for this data point.  Hopefully we can look elsewhere with 
confidence, at least for the most common reason(s).

When I was looking for your message, I found another from Dave Korn[3] in 
which he suggested using -x option to bash to see details of the failure. 
This is also used in what I called "nonsense testcase"[4].  It seems that -x 
would be a useful first pass at gathering data, less volume than strace?

[1] http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2006-04/msg00127.html
[2] http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2006-05/msg00262.html
[3] http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2006-04/msg00125.html
[4] http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2006-05/msg00422.html 




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -