X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D08A5385703F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1596445816;
	bh=lqwcuAf7+X8lVr14Qn6DZqqMm+2l5SiiPW7Y6KHBC6s=;
	h=Subject:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	 List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	 From;
	b=OpsPiY2fn7GemfgQ1OgkDG5VhyExuhyB74phCuo7cLq6DVVzVuezqzMBxAijEKCia
	 Q69DKcW9dsBuWQYoza+wEhdfhwRMmtOfRV2WW122RsFGCeeMVY52hcC58rQr5MuSsp
	 xbaFw8OkbUrORP4rDBReLU+C7NoFc5GO35mQpimA=
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 426413857C42
Message-ID: <9c44f4351d459a2ba8d27c65bf71679208cb13d6.camel@tdcadsl.dk>
Subject: Re: Synchronization problem with posix_spawn
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 11:10:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20200731081025.GB460314@calimero.vinschen.de>
References: <b1992e8b-d2e8-9c44-8f93-a270d5a879ed AT cornell DOT edu>
 <864b3031-9fc8-beb3-ba7c-1ade4c31a288 AT cornell DOT edu>
 <20200730115913 DOT GL4206 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
 <20200730171723 DOT GA460314 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
 <86051625-646d-065a-8543-1c3086411d3d AT cornell DOT edu>
 <20200731081025 DOT GB460314 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.4 (3.36.4-1.fc32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-yse-mailing: LEGIT
X-yse-spamcause: OK,
 (0)(0000)gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrjeeggdduudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfvffevpdggtfgfpffufgeuufevtffkuefgpdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepkffuhffvffgjfhgtfggggfesthejredttderjeenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgvrhcuffhonhhsucfvhigthhhsvghnuceoughonhhpvggurhhosehtuggtrggushhlrdgukheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdeigfegueduveekvdegfeeufeeihfegledvkeevieeiheffiedtkeeuiedtjeffnecukfhppedutddrvdeirddvvdeirddufedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghlohepmhifuhhmfhdtfedtjedpihhnvghtpedutddrvdeirddvvdeirddufedupdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepughonhhpvggurhhosehtuggtrggushhlrdgukhdprhgtphhtthhopegthihgfihinhestgihghifihhnrdgtohhm
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From: Peter Dons Tychsen via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: Peter Dons Tychsen <donpedro AT tdcadsl DOT dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com>

Hi all,

On Fri, 2020-07-31 at 10:10 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Oh well.  I did a quick test with your new testcase (thanks for
> that!)
> and it seems to be a bit more complicated than I anticipated
> yesterday.
> The parent-child relationship between the processes is broken.  I
> have
> to think a while about this problem, stay tuned.

I also have seen this problem. I propose a different solution however.
Why no get rid of the call to fork() all together. One of the things
bogging down performance on larger setups is the calls to fork() are is
inherently slow and should be avoided at all costs. Instead why don't
we just call spawn(vpe) instead, which is quite stable and fast.

This would give a _huge_ boost to e.g. larger build jobs. Make supports
posix_spawn, but it does not help on cygwin at it just calls back into
fork().

The current implementation is probably something that makes sense on
BSD/linux as fork() is lightning fast there.

Just an idea... 

/pedro


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