X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:43:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Please try a snapshot - final push for 1.5.19
In-Reply-To: <20051221173940.GB11244@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0512211335210.8494@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <20051221162249 DOT GA9890 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>  <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0512211200200 DOT 8494 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>  <20051221173940 DOT GB11244 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:17:09PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >I've been having problems with "fork: resource unavailable" on my machine
> >with the 10/03 snapshot.[snip]
> >
> >I'm at a loss on how to proceed.[snip]
> >[snip]
> >
> >Any pointers/advice would be appreciated.
>
> Below is the contents from "how-to-debug-cygwin.txt".  This file is
> found in the cygwin source directory.
> [snip]

A simple "you'd have to debug this yourself" would have sufficed, thank
you.  And I knew I would need to do this.  However, this kind of problem
is not covered in how-to-debug-cygwin.txt, for two reasons: a) it is not a
crash, and thus the JIT debugging instructions are useless, and b) it was
not reproducible under gdb, unfortunately -- only under strace.

I was hoping that the particular pattern in the strace would jump out at
someone familiar with the code.  I guess this is not the case, so I'll try
to get more understanding of the code and see if I can figure out the
problem myself.  At first glance, this looks like a PID reuse problem --
the PID is reused before the old pinfo structure could be released, and
with the high load, 20 loop iterations aren't enough to wait it out.  I
suspect that upping the NPIDS_HELD to 8 would at least work around the
problem -- would a patch like this be accepted if I could show that this
is the reason for the failure?

I'll post back when (and if) I have more info.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

--
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/