X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: "Bryan D. Thomas" Subject: Re: "fork problem" debugging Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 05:10:26 -0700 Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <20060518023929.65449.qmail@web31310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.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/